IRENA, a Renewables Proponent, Ignores the Actual Cost Data for Offshore Wind Systems in the UK
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...
The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) provides politicians and media with false information, based on faulty models, the same as the IPCC does for the climate, instead of dealing with real-world measured data, as advocated by various Nobel price recipients, and hundreds of professors and engineers, who are members of CLINTEL, etc.
IRENA claims, it’s difficult get hold of hard data on the subject of onshore wind projects.
This is absolute nonsense.
Allow me to introduce you to "Companies House", where you will find the audited financial accounts for every UK offshore wind project, and at least half of the onshore ones.
Hard data, freely available to download!
Offshore Wind in Deep Trouble in the US and UK
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 poor state of Maine, should pay attention
The bids were made under 'contracts for Difference' (CfDs) that guarantee future minimum prices to wind turbine producers.
The price offered by the UK government was around £60/€69 per megawatt hour (MWh)
Apparently, it is much too low to attract investors, who want at least £120 - £138/MWh, i.e. about 100% more.
Item 1
Levelized Cost of Energy, £/MWh, is Underestimated by IRENA
Each year a project has the following major costs: 1) Amortize the bank loan, 2) Pay the owner the return on investment, 3) Operations and Maintenance, 4) All other costs.
These costs can be added for a year, with the total divided by the production for that year, to obtain the cost/MWh for that year.
Adding the costs for all 20 years, and dividing by the production of all 20 years, will result in the levelized cost/MWh
The claim by ERINA of 1) decreasing prices of wind electricity and 2) wind electricity being competitive with other fossil is a myth, as GWPF indicates in the graph below.
The graph is based on the levelized cost of energy, LCOE
The graph shows, real-world LCOEs are about 2x the UK CfD offer of £60/£69/MWh; no wonder no bids were received.
The green area shows what wind proponents think, the wind LCOE should be.
It is likely based on biased sources they agree with, such as IRENA
Analyses of recent projects shows real-world LCOEs are about 2x wind-proponent claims.
Those proponents are proving they are disconnected from the market forces of the real world
Item 2
Operations and Maintenance Cost, £/MWh, is Underestimated by IRENA
The graph below shows O&M (aka OPEX) vs seawater depth. The newest windmills are located at greater depths.
IRENA (green area) underestimates the cost by 2x and more, depending on whether the turbines are in deeper water.
IRENA appears to be relying on a 2018 modeling study from the US, and a remark in an investor presentation from Oersted.
IRENA concludes O&M is in the range £50,000 - £100,000 per installed MW, operating for a year.
Companies House has better data
The data is by depth of water, in meters
The data shows slightly increasing O&M values from £65,000 - £200,000 per installed MW, operating for a year.
The O&M trend increases with wind turbine age, which is normal
Older cars require more maintenance and shop-time than newer cars
.
The costs in the below graph, based on Companies House data, shows a trend towards the O&M LCOE doubling over 20 years.
It is precisely the opposite of the ERINA claim of O&M LOCE becoming less over time.
No wonder wind turbine manufacturers and project developers are in dire straits and US and UK projects are on hold; they believed their own propaganda
This will have a major impact on future wholesale and household costs of electricity, £/kWh
Item 3
Capacity Factors are Overestimated by IRENA
The capacity factor is very important, not only for the producer, but also for the grid operator, such as ISO-NE.
It indicates how much energy is supplied, compared to what can be supplied at full load (at nameplate output)
The first chart is from IRENA
The second chart is based on Companies House data.
Notice a totally opposite trend over time between the two charts.
The second graph shows the reality with a CF decrease of about 25% over the life of the plant
The newer wind turbines, 5 - 6 MW go from 45% to 25%, a loss of 40% over 10 years, similar to the newer 7 - 8 MW wind turbines.
This indicates a faster wear-and-tear, and breakdowns, likely due to newness of designing the larger-capacity turbines.
This causes increased O&M, which leads to more downtime, less production, lower CFs
Maintenance costs of wind turbines are very high and difficult (think of repairs/replacements of 100 meter blades 30 miles out to sea), and greatly underestimated.
The first graph (blue and red dots), by IRENA, shows increasing capacity factors for Europe that would currently be around 45% on average (a figure that media and politicians like to cite), while the second graph shows this is valid only for larger wind turbines, aged less than 3 years.
.
Figure 2, IRENA’s capacity factor graph
Companies House has better data
A few recent UK offshore wind systems have averaged a 46% capacity factor over their first few years of operation, but there is a trend to decreasing CFs with wind turbine age, which is normal.
This is clear in Figure 3, which divides the fleet into cohorts, but this time by size of turbine.
The smallest capacity wind turbines have the least decrease in CF; they have been produced in large numbers for many years, and all the design flaws have been eliminated.
The largest capacity wind turbines, of which relatively few are in operation, have rapidly decreasing CFs, which is likely due to a much less mature design.
Increased O&M leads to more down-time, less production, lower CFs.
.
Figure 3; UK offshore wind capacity factors
Item 4
Operations and Maintenance Costs/MWh is Underestimated by ERINA
IRENA ignores the CF decreases with aging of the turbines
IRENA is assuming no decrease in CF over wind system lifetimes, just as the pro-Wind Whitehall bureaucrats.
As a result, when they look at the effect of O&M on overall costs, they conclude O&M/kWh has been decreasing.
They are suggesting, an O&M figure of about £13/MWh should be expected for European wind systems commissioned in the last five years.
Companies House has better data
Figure 4 shows at least £52/MWh for European wind systems commissioned in the last five years.
IRENA’s O&M estimates are too low by a factor of 4
NOTE: This article shows O&M costs at $68/MWh (2017$, equivalent to £55.7), which similar to the Company House data.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifetime-performance-o...
The calculation uses variable O&M at $130/installed kW-y, per industry data for 2015. See URL
The installed capacity of the wind turbine system, in operation for one year, is 4,950 kW
Variable O&M, $130/installed kW-y in 2015, became $134/installed kW-y, in 2017, after adjusting for inflation
Annual O&M of turbines and cabling to shore is 4950 x 134 = $663,300/y (2017$)
Annual electricity production is 9,720 MWh/y. See URL
Cost of variable O&M is 663,300/9720 = $68/MWh (2017$), or 6.8 c/kWh;
The $68/MWh value likely increased to about $75 - $80/MWh in 2023, because of high interest rates, high inflation, high energy and materials cost, supply chain constrains and delays, etc., which increased O&M costs/MWh, during the period 2018 -2023, almost 6 years
.
Figure 4: UK offshore wind – O&M part of LCOE
Item 5
Levelized Cost of Energy, LCOE, and Wind Integration Cost
LCOE
Although LCOE is commonly used, it is a poor measure for an analysis of variable-supply power generation, such as wind and solar.
They are not always available, whereas, the real-time market requires a demand-driven supply, i.e., which means electricity must be reliably and instantly available when needed by users.
Buffering: It is the conversion from variable-supply to demand-driven supply. It requires having:
1) A fleet of quick-reacting, combined-cycle, gas-turbine plants, CCGTs, and/or reservoir hydro plants for counteracting/balancing the variable wind/solar output, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, year after year
2) Curtailments (payments to owners for not producing), in case of potential over generation by wind/solar, and filling-in by on-demand power plants, in case of potential under generation by wind/solar
3) Extension/augmentation of electric grids to connect all these wind/solar systems
At high levels of annual wind/solar loaded onto the grid, say 40% , the cost of these three items becomes 30 to 40 percent added to the LCOE of wind/solar
Also, the non-wind/solar part of the electrical system has to operate at lesser efficiencies, as greater percentages of wind/solar are loaded onto the grid.
That means more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more c/kWh.
The extra CO2, due to the inefficiencies, will largely offset the CO2 wind/solar was meant to reduce, as happened in Ireland.
See writeup of Irish system in URL
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...
THIS WOULD BE A HUGE WAKEUP CALL REGARDING THE CO2 REDUCTION OF WIND/SOLAR, IF THE MEDIA WOULD ONLY WRITE ABOUT IT, AND IF THE IPCC WOULD ONLY ACKNOWLEDGE IT
NOTE: The LCOEs of wind or solar, published by various government and academia entities, typically does not include LCOE of buffering costs
Wind/Solar Integration Costs
The costs of wind/solar integration includes: 1) grid extension/augmentation, 2) a fleet of quick-reacting, counteracting/balancing plants, including hydro plants with reservoir storage, 3) curtailments.
NOTE:
Often battery systems are mentioned for storage, but they are extremely expensive, and have very high costs/kWh passing through them.
See Part 8 of URL which shows a minimum cost of 51.9 c/kWh delivered to the high voltage grid.
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...
The below graph shows exponentially increasing integration costs with increasing annual wind/solar percent on the grid.
The graph shows at about 30% wind/solar on the grid, as in the UK in 2023, the integration cost can vary from $15/MWh to about $40/MWh, with a mean value of about $25/MWh.
The actual UK value was about $19/MWh in 2020, as shown in the below article, likely higher in 2023, due to more wind/solar systems, high inflation, high interest rates, etc.
This article has the details
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...
Example of Curtailment/Counteracting/Balancing Costs of Wind/Solar in the UK: When wind/solar were 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”
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 2.5 – 7.5 c/kWh, with a mean value of about 5 c/kWh, at 50% annual wind/solar loaded onto the UK grid. See graph
NOTE: On a pro-rated basis, the US cost would be about 4000/312 x 1.65 = $21.2 billion, if the US were to have 28.4% wind/solar loaded onto the US grid.
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, 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.
Some pro-renewable-energy folks, more technically-inclined, understand the exponentially increasing costs, if approaching 50% wind/solar on the grid.
They often use that "cost adversity" of wind/solar as an opportunity to justify converting electricity into hydrogen by hydrolysis, a typical high school physics lab experiment, and storing the hydrogen at high pressure.
California has a few hydrogen stations where cars can "fill up" their high-pressure tanks, at about $10 to $12/gallon, with gasoline at $4 - $5/gal
However, those hydrogen proponents do not mention, the A-to-Z cost of such conversion would be extremely costly and lead to even higher electricity costs/kWh than offshore wind
IT WOULD BE LIKE GOING FROM ONE BLACK HOLE INTO A DEEPER ONE
Item 6
EROI
Another measure for comparing energy systems is EROI or energy realized divided by energy invested
Buffering requirements are described above
Low EROI values indicate high invested energy to build a system that does not realize much energy
That invested energy would be no longer available to meet the social requirements, which increase with an increasing standards of living.
The wind, solar, batteries, "electrify-everything" BLACK HOLE, has a buffered EROI, of less than 4
It takes an EROI of at least 7 for a developed country to just MAINTAIN itself, which means it would slide backwards relative to more enterprising countries
Western Europe and most of the US have an EROI ratio of about 25.
That EROI = 25 value used to be higher, but recent government excesses are sure as hell REDUCING that EROI, by measures such as:
1) Deficit spending, open borders, identity/sex orientation, etc,
2) The bloated military-industrial complex, which thrives on unrest and perpetual war
3) The Ukraine black hole
4) The wind, solar, battery, “electrify-everything” black hole
5) Closing high EROI nuclear plants
The following energy sources do not reach EROI = 7, after buffering
Variable PV solar (needs buffering),
Biomass, mostly for wood-burning power plants with an efficiency of 25% (EROI is too low),
Variable Onshore and Offshore Wind (needs buffering)
Concentrated solar power, CSP, located mostly in the US Southwest, is barely above 7, after buffering
CSPs require back-up power plants, gas or oil fired, to cover daytime periods lacking sufficient sunshine, to ensure a continuous, steady power supply, 24/7/365, per signed contracts.
.
Item 7
The below graph shows, the evolution of the EROI for the UK from the Middle Ages
Only muscle power, windmills and hydropower were available, and no fossil energy
The graph shows, the time spent, just to provide for the basic necessities of life, has decreased from about 70% during the Middle Ages to about 10% at present.
The corresponding EROI increased from less than 5 in the Middle Ages to about 30 today, thanks to the input of fossil energy for energy generation, starting with the use of coal, followed by oil, gas and nuclear.
NOTE: In the literature, other authors indicate a lesser required EROI of 20 - 25, instead of 30.
Nuclear Plants to the Rescue: The graph shows, the fossil, etc., electricity generation, but does not identify the electricity generation by nuclear power plants.
The nuclear plants, with an EROI value of about 75, make a large contribution to the current standard of living.
One MW of nuclear plant, with a CF = 0.90, and lasting up to 80 years, contributes more than one MW of fossil fuel plant with a CF = 0.75, and lasting up to 50 years.
A nuclear plant is about 2 times more productive over its lifetime than a coal plant, 0.9 x 80/0.45 x 50 = 1.92
It has an EROI of 75 vs 30 for coal
Russia, China, South Korea are the three main builders of nuclear power plants all over the world. Their plants, meeting the latest international standards, are built at a turnkey capital cost of about $5,000/installed kW, much less than similar plants built by European and U.S. companies.
APPENDIX
At present, owners of offshore wind projects want a return on invested capital of at least 10%.
Bank loans for risky projects are at least 6.5%, home mortgages for people with good credit are at 7.5%
Those rates will be with us for quite some time, because the world’s savings rate is too low, and printing more money and additional deficit spending is completely unacceptable
That means a major diversion of scarce investable funds to the highest SUBSIDIZED bidders of INEFFICIENT electricity production, if the folly of wind, solar, batteries, hydrogen is continued.
THIS FOLLY IS A GUARANTEED RECIPE FOR GOING BACKWARDS.
Luckily, the rest of the world, including BRISC-11, is paying lip service to climate nonsense
Payments to owners and banks will be at least 20 c/kWh, fixed as the years go by
O&M will be at least 8 c/kWh in 2023, more as the years go by
All other costs will be at least 4 c/kWh, in 2023, more as the years go by
Toal cost 32 c/kWh in 2023, more as the years go by
This 32c/kWh number does not account for the decrease of capacity factor, and the extra increase in O&M, and the extra decrease of production, as the years go by
The 32 c/kWh also does not account for:
1) the exponentially increasing cost of counteracting/balancing/curtailments, which were about 2 c/kWh in 2020, with 28% wind/solar fed to the grid, much higher with 50% wind/solar, plus
2) the cost of grid expansion/augmentation to connect all those wind and solar systems; never call the farms!!
Government financial gimmicks pay owners 16 c/kWh
Utilities pay owners 16 c/kWh
The 16 c/kWh is what most owners tell US federal and state governments they need to get paid to be viable; some want 19 c/kWh
The 2023 UK auction received ZERO bid from offshore wind developers, which means the UK subsidies need to be INCREASED to at least as high as US subsidies to get any bids.
At present, Whitehall bureaucrats have their heads buried in the sand, with stiff upper lip, hoping it all will somehow blow over. A hopeless bunch of nuts, that believed its own propaganda
Here is proof, the New York State bureaucrats are just as dense as the Whitehall bureaucrats
Owners want a return on their investment of at least 10%/y, when bank loans and long-term CDs are 6.5%/y.
The 3.5% is about 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 50% US subsidies, which are provided, per various laws, by the US Treasury to the owners. See Items 4 and 6 in URL
Oersted, Denmark, Sunrise wind, NYS estimate $110.37/MWh, needs $139.99/MWh, a 27% increase
Equinor, Norway, Empire 1 wind, NYS estimate $118.38/MWh, needs $159.64/MWh, a 35% increase
Equinor, Norway, Empire 2 wind, NYS estimate $107.50/MWh, needs $177.84/MWh, a 66% increase
Equinor, Norway, Beacon Wind, NYS estimate $118.00/MWh, needs $190.82/MWh, a 62% increase
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/liars-lies-exposed-as-...
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...
Views: 136
Comment
-
Comment by Willem Post on October 9, 2023 at 3:49pm
-
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...
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, i.e., in just 7 years,
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 to build factories, ports, cranes, specialized ships, etc., for manufacturing and erecting nacelles, towers and rotor blades, 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: The US will have at least a $1.0 trillion trade deficit and about a $2.0 trillion federal budget deficit in 2023. The US is in no position to engage in giveaways.
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 poor state of Maine, should pay attention
Six 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...
3) EU big wind conglomerates want, on average, 40% more, because turnkey capital costs (foundations, turbines, cabling to shore, installation) increased to at least $5,500/installed kW, with bank loan rates at 6.5% in 2023, from $3,500/kW and 3% in 2021
4) UK and New York State bureaucrats are grossly uninformed regarding market conditions. They display zero business sense. New York State bureaucrats calculated their estimates of offshore wind contract prices, but when the owners saw those numbers, they said, we need up to 66% more, for our spreadsheets to make business sense.
Owners want a return on their investment of at least 10%/y, when bank loans and long-term CDs are 6.5%/y.
The 3.5% is about 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 50% US subsidies, which are provided, per various laws, by the US Treasury to the owners. See Items 4 and 6
Oersted, Denmark, Sunrise wind, NYS estimate $110.37/MWh, needs $139.99/MWh, a 27% increase
Equinor, Norway, Empire 1 wind, NYS estimate $118.38/MWh, needs $159.64/MWh, a 35% increase
Equinor, Norway, Empire 2 wind, NYS estimate $107.50/MWh, needs $177.84/MWh, a 66% increase
Equinor, Norway, Beacon Wind, NYS estimate $118.00/MWh, 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. IRENA is a government-controlled, offshore wind rah-rah site, that cannot be trusted
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
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-average 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: Assume a $55 million, 10 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation at $5,500/kW.
- Production 10 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 35,064,000 kWh/y
- Amortizing bank loan for 50% of the project at 6.5%/y for 20 years, 7.017 c/kWh.
- Paying Owner of 50% of the project at 10%/y for 20 years, 9.082 c/kWh
- Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.
- All other items, 4 c/kWh
- Total cost 7.017 + 8.468 + 8 + 4 = 27.961 c/kWh
- Less 50% subsidies (tax credits, 5-year depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 13.981 c/kWh
- Owner sells to utility at 13.981 c/kWh
Not included:
- Cost of onshore grid expansion/augmentation, about 2 c/kWh
- Cost of curtailment/counteracting/balancing, 24/7/365, about 2 c/kWh
- Cost of decommissioning, i.e., disassembly at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites
Floating offshore wind
Electricity Cost: Assume a $75 million, 10 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation at $7,500/kW.
- Production 10 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 35,064,000 kWh/y
- Amortizing bank loan for 50% of the project at 6.5%/y for 20 years, 9.568 c/kWh.
- Paying Owner of 50% of the project at 10%/y for 20 years, 12.385 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 = 33.953 c/kWh
- Less 50% subsidies (tax credits, 5-year depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 16.997 c/kWh
- Owner sells to utility at 16.997 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:
1) Natural gas-fueled CCGT plants, that have low-cost, low-CO2, very-low particulate/kWh
2) Uranium-fueled nuclear plants, that have low-cost, near-zero CO2, zero particulate/kWh
3) Hydro plants, that have 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:
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/balance the wind output variations, 24/7/365; the more wind (and solar), the greater the electricity quantities, MWh, involved in the counteracting/balancing, plus their plants have to spend more time on hot and cold standby, and are 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
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
Variable/intermittent wind and solar requires a fleet of quick-responding, 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:
1) Days with variable cloudiness
2) Days with panels covered with snow and ice
3) Days with foggy conditions
4) All days, from late afternoon/early evening to mid-morning the next day, when solar is minimal or zero.
5) All days, during peak demand hours of late afternoon/early evening, when wind and solar usually are minimal
6) Simultaneous wind/solar lulls, when the output of both is minimal for up to 5 to 7 days, sometimes followed by another multi-day wind/solar lull. See URLs of multi-day, simultaneous wind/solar lulls in Germany and New England
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/analysis-of-a-6-day-lu...
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-plus-solar-plus-st...
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-energy-...
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/playing-russian-roulet...
Without the fleet of counteracting/balancing plants, variable wind/solar power could not be fed into the grid.
That means, 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 preferred/more economical mode. The fleet experiences:
1) More up/down production at lesser efficiencies; more Btu and CO2/kWh, more c/kWh
2) More wear-and-tear, due to up/down production and more starts/stops; more Btu and CO2/kWh, more c/kWh
3) 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.
4) 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-reduction...
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
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-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, 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.
3) Wind/Solar Grid Extension/Reinforcement Cost
Variable/intermittent wind and 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-f...
A significant portion of those costs should be charged to the Owners of wind and 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 finally 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-reduction...
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 and nuclear in Sweden, 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 did not have a sufficient fleet of traditional counteracting/balancing plants. Germany had to impose rationing measures on its industry and households.
Maine as Third World Country:
CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power
Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.
Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT
******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********
(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/
Not yet a member?
Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?
We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
-- Mahatma Gandhi
"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi
Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!
Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law
Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future
"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."
https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/
© 2024 Created by Webmaster.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!
Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine