Rep. Reagan Paul - Nuclear Energy: A Missed Opportunity for Maine
Today, the word “nuclear” often sparks fear, with talk of nuclear weapons dominating headlines. This fear is understandable but misplaced when it comes to nuclear energy—an entirely different application with enormous potential to benefit Maine.
Unfortunately, misinformation has become a major barrier to this clean, reliable, and innovative energy source. Maine is missing out on the nuclear renaissance happening across the country. Advanced nuclear technologies, such as small modular reactors (SMRs), are proving to be a game-changer. They produce no greenhouse gas emissions, require minimal land use, and deliver consistent baseline energy, unlike the intermittent output of wind and solar. States embracing this technology are reaping the rewards: lower energy costs, greater energy independence, and the creation of high-quality jobs. With lower energy costs come even more economic opportunities from sectors that are highly dependent on electricity use, like the data centers that will power the emergent Artificial Intelligence revolution.
Last session, I introduced a bill, LD 1549, to study the potential benefits of SMRs for Maine. This was a step toward exploring how nuclear energy could provide reliable, affordable power while reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. Sadly, the bill was killed by Democrats. Despite the growing evidence of nuclear energy’s promise, its safety, and its increasing support nationwide, Democratic lawmakers instead clung to old ideas about subsidized solar panels and experimental offshore wind turbines. This decision wasn’t just short-sighted; it ignored Maine’s urgent need for cost-effective, reliable energy solutions. Nearly 60 percent of Mainers struggle to afford basic necessities, and our current energy policies are only making life harder for families and businesses.
Common Nuclear Energy Myths vs. Facts
Myth: Nuclear energy is unsafe and prone to catastrophic accidents.
Fact: Modern reactors, including SMRs, use advanced safety features to prevent accidents, and they are designed to shut down automatically in emergencies. Nuclear is one of the safest energy sources when measured by fatalities per unit of electricity produced.
Myth: Nuclear waste is unmanageable and dangerous.
Fact: Spent nuclear fuel is safely stored in dry casks or wet pools at reactor sites. All of the spent fuel from the past 70 years in the U.S. could fit on a single football field, stacked 10 yards deep. Advanced reactors will further reduce waste by recycling used fuel.
Myth: Nuclear energy is too expensive.
Fact: While initial costs are high, nuclear reactors provide decades of consistent, low-cost power. SMRs reduce upfront costs with their modular design, making them more affordable for states like Maine.
Myth: Nuclear energy isn’t clean.
Fact: Nuclear produces zero emissions during operation and has a smaller lifecycle carbon footprint than wind or solar when considering construction and materials.
Myth: Nuclear energy is outdated.
Fact: SMRs represent the cutting edge of nuclear technology, offering smaller, safer, and more efficient reactors tailored to modern needs.
A Vision for Maine
Nuclear energy could — and should — be the cornerstone of Maine’s future. Around the world, nuclear reactors provide nearly 50 percent of the clean energy in countries like the U.S., and advances in technology have made them safer and more efficient than ever. Small modular reactors are particularly well-suited for rural states like Maine, where smaller-scale projects could bring power to communities without massive infrastructure overhauls.
Maine deserves better. We need to cut through the myths and embrace proven solutions that work. It’s time for leaders to focus on facts, not fear. I remain committed to pursuing innovative energy policies like SMRs because Maine’s future—and its hardworking people—deserve nothing less. It’s time we harness the power of nuclear energy to build a stronger, cleaner, and more affordable future for Maine.
Today, the word “nuclear” often sparks fear, with talk of nuclear weapons dominating headlines. This fear is understandable but misplaced when it comes to nuclear energy—an entirely different application with enormous potential to benefit Maine.
Unfortunately, misinformation has become a major barrier to this clean, reliable, and innovative energy source. Maine is missing out on the nuclear renaissance happening across the country. Advanced nuclear technologies, such as small modular reactors (SMRs), are proving to be a game-changer. They produce no greenhouse gas emissions, require minimal land use, and deliver consistent baseline energy, unlike the intermittent output of wind and solar. States embracing this technology are reaping the rewards: lower energy costs, greater energy independence, and the creation of high-quality jobs. With lower energy costs come even more economic opportunities from sectors that are highly dependent on electricity use, like the data centers that will power the emergent Artificial Intelligence revolution.
Last session, I introduced a bill, LD 1549, to study the potential benefits of SMRs for Maine. This was a step toward exploring how nuclear energy could provide reliable, affordable power while reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. Sadly, the bill was killed by Democrats. Despite the growing evidence of nuclear energy’s promise, its safety, and its increasing support nationwide, Democratic lawmakers instead clung to old ideas about subsidized solar panels and experimental offshore wind turbines. This decision wasn’t just short-sighted; it ignored Maine’s urgent need for cost-effective, reliable energy solutions. Nearly 60 percent of Mainers struggle to afford basic necessities, and our current energy policies are only making life harder for families and businesses.
Common Nuclear Energy Myths vs. Facts
Myth: Nuclear energy is unsafe and prone to catastrophic accidents.
Fact: Modern reactors, including SMRs, use advanced safety features to prevent accidents, and they are designed to shut down automatically in emergencies. Nuclear is one of the safest energy sources when measured by fatalities per unit of electricity produced.
Myth: Nuclear waste is unmanageable and dangerous.
Fact: Spent nuclear fuel is safely stored in dry casks or wet pools at reactor sites. All of the spent fuel from the past 70 years in the U.S. could fit on a single football field, stacked 10 yards deep. Advanced reactors will further reduce waste by recycling used fuel.
Myth: Nuclear energy is too expensive.
Fact: While initial costs are high, nuclear reactors provide decades of consistent, low-cost power. SMRs reduce upfront costs with their modular design, making them more affordable for states like Maine.
Myth: Nuclear energy isn’t clean.
Fact: Nuclear produces zero emissions during operation and has a smaller lifecycle carbon footprint than wind or solar when considering construction and materials.
Myth: Nuclear energy is outdated.
Fact: SMRs represent the cutting edge of nuclear technology, offering smaller, safer, and more efficient reactors tailored to modern needs.
A Vision for Maine
Nuclear energy could — and should — be the cornerstone of Maine’s future. Around the world, nuclear reactors provide nearly 50 percent of the clean energy in countries like the U.S., and advances in technology have made them safer and more efficient than ever. Small modular reactors are particularly well-suited for rural states like Maine, where smaller-scale projects could bring power to communities without massive infrastructure overhauls.
Maine deserves better. We need to cut through the myths and embrace proven solutions that work. It’s time for leaders to focus on facts, not fear. I remain committed to pursuing innovative energy policies like SMRs because Maine’s future—and its hardworking people—deserve nothing less. It’s time we harness the power of nuclear energy to build a stronger, cleaner, and more affordable future for Maine.
See the full piece at https://www.themainewire.com/2024/12/nuclear-energy-a-missed-opport...
*************************************
Fair Use Notice: This website may reproduce or have links to copyrighted material the use of which has not been expressly authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available, without profit, as part of our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, economic, scientific, and related issues. It is our understanding that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided by law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Views: 33
Comment
-
Comment by Willem Post on December 18, 2024 at 11:22am
-
In the tropics and subtropics, CO2 a weak photon absorber, plays no measurable role, because, near the surface, it is outnumbered by at least seventy to one by water vapor, a strong photon absorber,
plus water vapor, 18, is lighter than CO2, 44, and air, 29, so it condenses into clouds at about 2000 meter elevation, which, with prevailing winds, are transported to northern latitudes, to areas underserved by the sun, especially during winter.
That means the water vapor and clouds we see up north comes from faraway places, because up north there is not enough energy to evaporate the water, which often lies on the ground as snow and ice.
But, even up north, near the surface, CO2 plays no measurable role, because water vapor outnumbers it at least 20 to one.
CO2 begins to play a measurable role when the presence of water vapor is lower, say 3 to 1, which is above the clouds.
However, above the clouds it is colder, and any photons emitted there would have longer wavelengths beyond the CO2 15 micrometer absorption window, but water vapor would absorb these photons, because it has a much wider window starting at about 15 micrometer.
No liberal arts journalists would ever write this, because it is way above their heads. That is the reason they stick to talking points provided by self-serving $stakeholders and their associates
-
-
You cannot run the cloud and AI with wind and solar.
Steady power is needed, 24/7/365
Standardized, modular, factory-built nuclear plants of 300 MW, a thousand of them, could supply all power needs of the US for 60 to 80 years before needing to be replaced.
-
-
I had a conversation just a few days ago with my aunt's caregiver, a salt of the earth woman whom I like immensely. We got on the subject of the solar "farms" that are spreading like black cancer over Maine's farm fields and on/off highway ramps, and she disliked them, both what they did to the landscape and her electric bill. I mentioned the word nuclear and fear flashed across her face. Nothing I said from that point on allied her fears of death by radiation. We ARE going nuclear, there are no other options when "the Cloud" and AI both demand enormous amounts of energy. It would be really nice if our politicians could embrace this reality and project calm confidence in SMR's as we move forward into the future, and put the brakes on their current love affair with environmentally and economically toxic "unreliables".
-
-
US Energy Consumption in 2023
US total consumption for all uses was 93.6 quad in 2023.
Over 77.1 quad (82.4%) from fossil fuels and 8.1 quad (8.7%) from nuclear fuels
After 35 years and several hundred $billion of subsidies, only 8.2 quad (8.8%) from renewables, such as:
1) wind,
2) pre-existing and new hydro,
3) pre-existing and new bio (mostly tree burning),
4) solar
1 quad = 10^15 Btu
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/visualized-u-s-energy-...
.
World Energy Consumption in 2023
According to the Energy Institute's 2023 Statistical Review of World Energy, world primary energy consumption was 620 Exajoules (EJ) in 2023. Breakdown by sector:
Fossil Fuels: 505 EJ (81.5%), of which
Oil: 196 EJ (up 2.5%)
Coal: 164 EJ (up 1.6%)
Natural Gas: 144 EJ (flat)
Renewables (including pre-existing and new bio, but excluding pre-existing and new hydro): About 8% of the total energy mix
1 EJ = 0.94781707774915 x 10^15 Btu, slightly less than a quad
-
-
A Comment
.
Not just Countries, but also certain US States should abandon environmentally destructive renewables, such as wind and solar, that produce lucrative opportunities for grifting and grafting by the elites, but only very expensive GRIEF for all others.
.
In 2023, world energy consumption for all purposes was 82% from fossil fuels, per the Energy Institute. The US percentage from fossil fuels is the same
.Not just Countries, but also certain US States should abandon environmentally destructive renewables, such as wind and solar, that produce lucrative opportunities for grifting and grafting by the elites, but only very expensive GRIEF for all others.
.
In 2023, world energy consumption for all purposes was 82% from fossil fuels, per the Energy Institute. The US percentage from fossil fuels is the same
.
Senator Collins of Maine, one of the calculating politicians in a Washington snake pit, is holding out approving the new Secretary of Defense, because she wants the secret PROMISE of $billions of goodies.
She already denied approval of the Matt Gaetz nomination for US DOJ to show how powerful she is.How he caroused with women during his earlier life likely is of no importance to her, except if money can be pilfered out of the federal $vault for Maine’s highly subsidized, grid-disturbing, environmentally-damaging, fishery/tourist-killing, 850-tall, experimental floating wind turbine contraptions, that produce electricity at 36 c/kWh with no subsidies, or 18 c/kWh after 50% subsidies, according to spreadsheet analysis.
.
If Denmark gets NO BIDS for three multi-$billion, standard offshore wind systems, in the North Sea, how in hell would Maine ever get any bids for its dubious, unproven, experimental floating contraptions?
.
The sooner politically connected, holy-cow, Aqua Ventus ceases to exist, and stops sucking from the government tits, the better for the long-suffering, over-regulated, over-taxed Maine people, who are trying to make ends meet in a near-zero, real-growth Maine economy, recently burdened by thousands of coddled illegal aliens who increase crime, increase social unrest, and drive down the wages of low-income workers.
.
No wonder Trump got elected and took the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court
Enough is enough
.
Democrats just do not get itThey do not deserve to be in government, say We the People!
-
-
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...Utility-scale, battery system pricing usually is not made public, but for this system it was.
Neoen, in western Australia, has just turned on its 219 MW/ 877 MWh Tesla Megapack battery, the largest in western Australia.
Ultimately, it will be a 560 MW/2,240 MWh battery system, $1,100,000,000/2,240,000 kWh = $491/kWh, delivered as AC, late 2024 pricing. Smaller capacity systems will cost much more than $500/kWh
.
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% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 92.3 c/kWh
At 40% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 23.1 c/kWh
Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 20% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 4) 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. Excluded costs would add at least 15 c/kWh
COMMENTS ON CALCULATION
Almost all existing battery systems operate at less than 10%, per EIA annual reports i.e., new systems would operate at about 92.4 + 15 = 107.4 c/kWh. They are used to stabilize the grid, i.e., frequency control and counteracting up/down W/S outputs. If 40% throughput, 23.1 + 15 = 38.1 c/kWh.
A 4-h battery system costs 38.1 c/kWh of throughput, if operated at a duty factor of 40%.
That is on top of the cost/kWh of the electricity taken from the HV grid to feed the batteries
Up to 40% could occur by absorbing midday solar peaks and discharging during late-afternoon/early-evening, which occur every day in California and other sunny states. The more solar systems, the greater the peaks.
See URL for Megapacks required for a one-day wind lull in New England
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.
Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the Owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They excessively charged/discharged the system. After a few years, 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...
Regarding any project, the bank and Owner have to be paid, no matter what. I amortized the bank loan and Owner’s investment
Divide total payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, you get c/kWh, as shown.
There is about a 20% round-trip loss, from HV grid to 1) step-down transformer, 2) front-end power electronics, 3) into battery, 4) out of battery, 5) back-end power electronics, 6) step-up transformer, to HV grid, i.e., you 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.
.
NOTE: Aerial photos of large-scale battery systems with many Megapacks, show many items of equipment, other than the Tesla supply, such as step-down/step-up transformers, switchgear, connections to the grid, land, access roads, fencing, security, site lighting, i.e., the cost of the Tesla supply is only one part of the battery system cost at a site.
.
NOTE: Battery system turnkey capital costs and electricity storage costs likely will be much higher in 2023 and future years, than in 2021 and earlier years, due to: 1) increased inflation rates, 2) increased interest rates, 3) supply chain disruptions, which delay projects and increase costs, 4) increased energy prices, such as of oil, gas, coal, electricity, etc., 5) increased materials prices, such as of tungsten, cobalt, lithium, copper, manganese, etc., 6) increased labor rates.
.
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)
.
NOTE: Norwegian floating offshore cost of $8,523/installed kW in Appendix 1
If Norwegian floating units were used in Maine, the production costs likely would be even higher, because:
Almost the entire supply of the Maine projects would be designed and made in Europe, then transported across the Atlantic Ocean, in European specialized ships, then unloaded at a new, $500-million Maine storage/pre-assembly/staging/barge-loading area, then barged to European specialized erection ships for erection of the floating turbines. The financing will be mostly by European pension funds paying pensions to retirees.
About 300 Maine people would have jobs during the erection phase
The other erection jobs would be by specialized European people, mostly on cranes and ships
About 200 Maine people would have long-term O&M jobs, using European spare parts, during the 20-y electricity production phase.
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 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
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: 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 Grid Expansion 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 systemThere 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 HV grid, which 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 1
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
The project produces 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.
If Norwegian units were used in Maine, the production costs would be even higher in Maine, because of the additional cost of transport of almost the entire supply, including specialized ships and cranes, across the Atlantic Ocean, plus
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..
https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-reports/north-sea-europe/arti...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_wind_turbine
.
APPENDIX 3
Offshore Wind in US and UK
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.
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 dysfunctional UK government.
Those US/UK goals are physically unachievable, even with 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 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...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.
High Costs/kWh of Offshore Wind
Forcing utilities to pay 15 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from fixed offshore wind systems, and forcing utilities to pay 18 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from floating offshore wind systems, is suicidal economic insanity.
.
Excluded costs, at a future 30% wind/solar penetration on the grid, the current UK level:
.
1) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S systems to load centers, about 2 c/kWh
2) 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, about 2 c/kWh
3) 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, to provide the electricity not produced by W/S systems, to meet demand, about 2 c/kWh.
4) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have produced, about 1 c/kWh
5) Disassembly at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-p...
.
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 15 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.
.
High Costs/kWh of Offshore Wind
Forcing utilities to pay 15 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from fixed offshore wind systems, and forcing utilities to pay 18 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from floating offshore wind systems, is suicidal economic insanity.
.
Excluded costs, at 30% wind/solar penetration on the grid, the current UK level:
.
1) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S systems to load centers, about 2 c/kWh
2) 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, about 2 c/kWh
3) 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, to provide the electricity not produced by W/S systems, to meet demand, about 2 c/kWh.
4) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have produced, about 1 c/kWh
5) Disassembly at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-p...
.
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.
.
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
In Bangladesh: 2 VVER-1200 reactors = 2400 MW at the Rooppur Power Station
Capital cost $12.65 billion is 90% funded by a loan from the Russian government. The two units generating 2400 MW are planned to be operational in 2024 and 2025. Rosatom will operate the units for the first year before handing over to Bangladeshi operators. Russia will supply the nuclear fuel and take back and reprocess spent nuclear fuel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant
.
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
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 does not need counteracting plants. They can be designed as load-following, as some are in France
.
Wind: 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 placesThey 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 producedMajor 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 a Total Fantasy: During COP28, Kerry called for the world to triple nuclear, from 370,200 MW to 1,110,600 MW, by 2050.
https://phys.org/news/2023-12-triple-nuclear-power-cop28.html
Kerry’s nuclear tripling by 2050, would add 11% of world electricity generation in 2050. See table
Nuclear was 9.2% of 2022 generation. That would become about 5% of 2050 generation, if some older plants are shut down, and plants already in the pipeline are placed in operation,
Total nuclear would be 11+ 5 = 16%; 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 Nuclear, 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
.
US Energy Consumption in 2023
Over 77.1 quad (82.4%) came from fossil fuels and 8.1 % (8.7%) from nuclear fuels
After 35 years and several hundred $billion of subsidies, only 8.2 quad (8.8%) came from renewables, such as:
1) wind,
2) pre-existing and new hydro,
3) pre-existing and new bio (mostly tree burning),
4) solar
1 quad = 10^15 Btu
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/visualized-u-s-energy-...
.
World Energy Consumption in 2023
According to the Energy Institute's 2023 Statistical Review of World Energy, world primary energy consumption was 620 Exajoules (EJ) in 2023. Breakdown by sector:
Fossil Fuels: 505 EJ (81.5%), of which
Oil: 196 EJ (up 2.5%)
Coal: 164 EJ (up 1.6%)
Natural Gas: 144 EJ (flat)
Renewables (including pre-existing and new bio, but excluding pre-existing and new hydro): About 8% of the total energy mix
1 EJ = 0.94781707774915 x 10^15 Btu, slightly less than a quad
https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review.
.
-
Comment by Dan McKay on December 17, 2024 at 5:24am
-
There are only a couple energy resources that can save Maine from the Grid Destroyer that the state legislature, the regulatory commissions and the promotion agencies have created with 20 year or more contracts that hand over ratepayer money to renewable energy benefit accounts. One, is to expand pipeline capacity to fuel natural gas-fired plants and the other is the complementary resource is nuclear. When will Maine get real?
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/
© 2025 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