Tired of Paying for Nothing, yet?
The goal of 51% renewable generation is not happening, Governor.
People are paying and paying as somehow electricity suppliers are buying certificates from renewable projects that don't show up in New England generation charts.
Who is getting all the money?
Is there collusion going on?
There is no legitimate way you can have 60% generation from natural gas and 51% renewable generation at the same time.
Ratepayers want an investigation, immediately.
Views: 37
Comment
-
Comment by Willem Post on September 18, 2023 at 4:32pm
-
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...
EXCERPT
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,
The continent-based European big wind companies have only 25% of the capacity per year for building 66,000 MW offshore by 2030
They 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, EU bureaucrats are 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 in Europe, to increase EU exports to the US, UK, and other markets.
The US will have at least a $1.0 trillion trade deficit and about a $2.0 trillion federal budget deficit in 2023
About 7,000 MW of offshore wind bids were awarded by the UK 4th Auction, in 2022
Zero MW of offshore wind bids were submitted for the UK 5th Auction, in 2023, a protest to low UK subsidies.
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) are at least $5,500/installed kW and interest rates 6.25% 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. BTW, 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-...
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...
NOTE: 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 interest rates.
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...
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 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, heat pumps, etc.
Electricity Cost: Assume a project consists of foundations, wind turbines, 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 of 50% of the project at 9%/y for 20 years, 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, 5-year depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 13.673 c/kWh
- Owner sells to utility at 13.673 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, as in Maine and California, 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 of 50% of the project at 9%/y for 20 years, 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, 5-year depreciation, 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...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/kWh, low-CO2/kWh, extremely-low particulate/kWh
2) Uranium-fueled nuclear plants, that have low-cost/kWh, near-zero CO2/kWh, zero particulate/kWh
3) Hydro plants, that have low-cost/kWh, near-zero-CO2/kWh, 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 required to 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...
-
-
The European Big Wind industry, drowning in RED INK, is finally telling the UK idiot bureaucrats, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
Paris is “off course”, because it was, and still is, built on a lie;
many NATURAL forces cause the observed global temperature changes, already for 4 billion yearsThe increase in interest rates, long overdue, due to excessive printing of money, plus increased inflation, and increased energy costs, and increased materials cost, and increased skilled labor costs, and increased supply chain bottlenecks (lack of specialized ships) have combined to increase the capital cost per MW of installed wind/solar/battery capacity by about 70%, according to Bloomberg.
People are finally beginning to realize, the costs of Paris are astronomical, and even the richest countries on the planet cannot afford it going forward.
This gave rise to BRISC+6, soon BRISC+12, including two nuclear superpowers, and two oil superpowers, which will represent about 60% of the world population, and will control the majority of the world’s resources.
Oil is at $95/barrel, as decided by Russia and SaudiArabia .
The US Strategic Oil Reserve is empty, due to the flawless “political executive planning” of the illegitimate/grifting/grafting, Biden in-the-basement
BRISC does no longer want its resources used for the West to play world domination and climate fantasy games
It is curtains for the US/EU, Paris, and the arbitrary imposing of its self-serving, rules-based, bull manure
No Offshore Wind bids for the 5th Auction in the UK in 2023, because UK bureaucrats, ignoring market conditions, offered subsidies that are at least 40% TOO LOW, per Vattenfall.
Read these two articles to get up to speed
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...US/UK 56,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-off...
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