The Biden Administration Misleads Public On Vast Expanses Of Land Needed For 'Net Zero'
By James Varney
September 12, 2023
By James Varney, RealClearInvestigations
September 12, 2023
The Department of Energy’s official line – echoed by many environmental activists and academics – is that the vast array of solar panels and wind turbines required to meet Biden’s goal of “100% clean electricity” by 2035 will require “less than one-half of one percent of the contiguous U.S. land area.” This topline number translates into 15,000 of the lower 48’s roughly 3 million square miles.
However, the government report that furnished those estimates also notes that the wind farm footprint alone could require an expanse nine times as large: 134,000 square miles.
Related: Growing Maze of State and Local Laws vs. Biden Energy Push
Even that figure is misleading because it does not include land for the new transmission systems that would connect the energy, created by the solar panels carpeting the ground and skyscraper-tall wind turbines filling the horizons, to American businesses and homes.
“It’s hundreds of thousands of acres if not millions for transmissions alone,” said David Blackmon, an energy consultant and writer based in Texas. “The wind and solar farms will take enormous swaths of land all over the country and no one is talking about that.”
In addition, all projections increase substantially if the U.S. were to meet Biden’s larger goal of aligning the nation with a global plan, set by the International Energy Association and pushed by the World Economic Forum of Davos, dubbed “NetZero 2050.”
Professor Jesse Jenkins at Princeton University, whose work is often cited by renewable energy advocates, did not respond to RCI’s questions, but he detailed the scope of the challenge in the May/June issue of progressive Mother Jones magazine. He urged the U.S. to embark on a moon-shot level transformation of its energy sector, using hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars that Biden provided for the renewable sector in the spending bill that Democrats named the Inflation Reduction Act.
“We’ll have to build as much new clean generation by 2035 as the total electricity produced by all sources today, then build the same amount again by 2050,” Jenkins wrote. “This could ultimately require utility-scale solar projects that cover the size of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut combined, and wind farms that span an area equal to that of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.”
Given the ambitious goals and tight time frames Biden has committed the nation to, it seems natural to assume there would be a master plan detailing where and when this renewable infrastructure will be built and come online. Yet despite strong resistance by many communities across the country to serve as hosts for these massive projects, there has been no robust public debate about how all the necessary land will be acquired – and whether, for example, it will include the taking of private property through eminent domain or use of national park lands, an idea the government officially dismisses.
In fact, no such master plan exists. The closest thing to it, according to a spokesperson for the federal National Renewable Energy Laboratory, is a “long-term strategy” put out by Biden’s climate envoy John Kerry. The optimistic, 65-page document does not, however, address the question of land use. The White House did not respond to questions from RCI.
The article continues at https://realclearwire.com/articles/2023/09/12/the_biden_administrat...
*************************************
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: 37
Comment
-
Comment by Willem Post on September 17, 2023 at 12:14pm
-
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 insane 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 insane fantasy of wanting to build 36,000 MW of offshore by 2030, i.e., in just 7 years,
The continent-based European big wind companies have only 25% of the capacity per year for building 66,000 MW offshore by 2030, or about 9,500 MW/y. These companies will concentrate on the U.S. market, because Biden’s "Inflation-Reduction-Act” subsidies are much higher than in the UK
About 7,000 MW of offshore wind bids were rewarded by the UK 4th Auction, in 2022
Zero MW of offshore wind bids were submitted for the UK 5th Auction, in 2023
1) Vattenfall, Sweden, has put on hold 1,400 MW in 2023 (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” federal and state tax credits. Oersted, etc., urges Biden to ignore the domestic content requirements of the Inflation Reduction Act, so 100% of the wind turbines will be very expensively built in Europe, with US subsidies.
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) have gone to at least $5,500/installed kW and interest rates to 6.25% in 2023, from $3,500/kW and 3% in 2021
UK and New York State bureaucrats are grossly uninformed regarding market conditions, as usual. They have 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. These contract prices are after 50% US subsidies. See Item 4 and note
Oersted, Denmark, Sunrise wind, original price $110.37/MWh, needs $139.99/MWh, a 27% increase
Equinor, Norway, Empire 1 wind, original price $118.38/MWh, needs $159.64/MWh, a 35% increase
Equinor, Norway, Empire 2 wind, original price $107.50/MWh, needs $177.84/MWh, a 66% increase
Equinor, Norway, Beacon Wind, original price $118.00/MWh, needs $190.82/MWh, a 62% increase
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/liars-lies-exposed-as-...
4)
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...
NOTE: “The all-in, turnkey capital cost associated with a typical US offshore project, before bonus tax credits related to the "Inflation-Reduction-Act", has increased by 57% since 2021.
Increased costs of materials, energy, components, labor, and supply chain disruptions and constraints (shortage of European-owned specialized ships) explain about 40% of that, with 60% due to increased interest rates.”, per Bloomberg recently reported, citing figures from Bloomberg-NEF
Increased financing costs are due to larger amounts borrowed/installed kW, at higher interest rates
In 2021, borrowing $3500/installed kW at 3% for 20 years would cost 3.322 c/kWh
In 2023, borrowing $5500/installed kW at 6.25% for 20 years would cost 6.879 c/kWh
Part 1
BIDEN 30,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-off...
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...
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, 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 would be about 30,000 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, lifetime-average capacity factor = 105,192,000 MWh, or 105.2 TWh
The additional wind production would be about 100 x 105.2/4000 = 2.63% of the annual electricity loaded onto US grids.
The US grid load would increase, due to tens of millions of future electric vehicles and heat pumps.
Electricity Cost: Assume an offshore project consists of wind turbines and cabling to shore, and installation at $5,500/kW
- Amortizing bank loan for 50% of the project at 6.25%/y for 20 years, 6.879 c/kWh.
- Paying Owner investment of 50% of the project at 9%/y for 20 years, is 8.468 c/kWh (9% because of high inflation).
- Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.
- All other items, 4 c/kWh
- Total cost 6.879 + 8.468 + 8 + 4 = 27.347 c/kWh
- Less 50% subsidies (tax credits, depreciation in 5 years, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 13.673 c/kWh
- Owner sells to utility at 13.673 c/kWh
Not included:
- Levelized cost of onshore grid expansion/augmentation, about 2 c/kWh
- Levelized cost of curtailment/counteracting/balancing, 24/7/365, about 2 c/kWh
- Levelized cost of decommissioning, i.e., disassembly at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites
Floating offshore wind, as in Maine and California offshore, would be about $7,500 per MW. Payments for Amortizing bank loan, Owner return, O&M, and All other items would be higher, and the c/kWh would be higher than offshore wind with foundations.
The subsidies, added to national debt, would be higher.
- Amortizing bank loan for 50% of the project at 6.25%/y for 20 years, 9.380 c/kWh.
- Paying Owner investment of 50% of the project at 9%/y for 20 years, is 11.547 c/kWh (9% because of high inflation).
- Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.
- All other items, 4 c/kWh
- Total cost 6.879 + 8.468 + 8 + 4 = 32.927 c/kWh
- Less 50% subsidies (tax credits, depreciation in 5 years, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 16.464 c/kWh
- Owner sells to utility at 16.464 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...
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