UK Pulls Plug on £24 Billion ($32 Billion) Desert Power Fantasy

In other words, after years of hype, headline-grabbing simulations and talk of “reliable clean power for 19 hours a day,” the reality of risk and expense finally intruded - and the dream of Sahara sun for all has been consigned to the scrapheap.

.

Perhaps the most telling line came when officials admitted this “first-of-a-kind mega project” carried “a high level of inherent, cumulative risk, delivery, operational, and security.”

.

In plain terms, nobody quite trusted a 3,800-mile subsea cable stretching from the Sahara to Devon to keep the lights on—or to fend off hostile actors, accidental damage or simple technical failure .

.

For all the talk of homegrown power, the reality was a foreign-built supergrid running through disputed waters, vulnerable to every storm, saboteur or bureaucratic blunder.

.

And yet just a few years ago, this venture was presented as the ultimate win-win: millions of desert acres covered in solar panels and wind turbines, exporting 3.6 GW of “reliable” energy to 7 million homes and displacing imported gas.

Xlinks even claimed it could reduce UK wholesale prices by over 9 percent in its first year of operation—implying that the very costs of this colossal scheme would pay for itself.

.

Leave aside the challenge of storing or transmitting intermittent deserts-of-power and the gargantuan batteries needed to smooth out every dust storm, and one must ask: who was really buying into this fairy tale—investors or ideologues?

.

.

No doubt Sir Dave Lewis, Xlinks’s chairman and former Tesco boss, felt the sting of rejection when he spoke of being “hugely surprised and bitterly disappointed.”

.

It is, after all, hard to maintain the sheen of global-scale green enthusiasm when home departments balk at underwriting your vision.

One can almost hear the collective shrug from Westminster: enough with offshore daydreams—build some turbines in Yorkshire, drill holes for storage in the Midlands, train some electricians in Glasgow and call it a day. .

For all the vaunted “diversity of supply,” it appears domestic alternatives won the argument over exotic imports.

.

There is a delicious irony in the timing.

As ministers tout an “accelerated path to net zero at least risk to billpayers and taxpayers,” they have effectively walked away from the single largest overseas renewable venture ever proposed .

The very same people who once celebrated cross-continental cables as the crowning achievement of global cooperation now invoke security concerns and “national interest” as their exit ramp.

.

One wonders how abruptly the narrative will shift next time a British-funded project in Kazakhstan or Canada hits a bump—will it be “not in the British interest” to proceed with those, too?

.

This turn of events also exposes the fundamental flaw of top-down climate technocracy.

it treats citizens as passive units in a planetary control scheme, not discerning voters with budgets to balance. .

When the public wises up to the fact that imported Sahara sun arrives at a price rivaling home-grown nuclear—and carries with it a risk of outages, sabotage or diplomatic spats—they recoil.

.

They learn that the cable would thread through multiple jurisdictions, remote islands and fierce currents, any one of which could jeopardize supply.

At some point, scepticism ceases to be a political liability and becomes simple common sense.

.

Consider the broader lesson: no matter how enthusiastically globalists embrace “interconnected grids,” the strings always end back at national treasuries and war-rooms.

.

The cable’s 1,500 square-mile solar-wind-battery complex in Morocco was to be the crown jewel of decarbonization, yet it was contingent on political goodwill in Rabat, cable-manufacturing in Asia, local security in the Sahara and stable undersea trench conditions for 3,800 miles—any of which could unravel faster than a hastily signed bilateral MoU.

.

The government’s conclusion that “stronger alternative options” exist closer to home may be the most uncontroversial statement of 2025 .

.

Detach for a moment from the partisan fray and savour the schadenfreude: this megaproject was touted as the elixir to Britain’s energy woes, yet it collapsed under its own hubris.

The very proponents who decried fossil-fuel inertia now cry foul when asked to stump up real money.

The same voices that demand “global solidarity” balk when that solidarity requires underwriting risks in unstable deserts.

And as for “green jobs” and “supply-chain opportunities”—it turns out that Asia still makes the cables and Morocco still controls the sun.

.

The demise of Xlinks’s Sahara venture may not end the net-zero narrative, but it does puncture a hole in the myth of techno-utopian inevitability.

When a scheme promising 8% of Britain’s electricity—at a price echoing nuclear—and requiring unprecedented security guarantees is deemed “not in the national interest,” one must wonder: how many more exotic grand plans will be ditched before realism returns? The answer, for now, seems to be one.

.

Let us not pretend this was a minor failure.

It represented the epitome of climate-policy excess: outsourcing critical infrastructure to distant deserts, bemoaning gas-price volatility while embracing solar-dust storms, and swapping local accountability for a vague vision of interconnected utopia.

.

Watching it crumble offers a rare moment of clarity amid the Net Zero hysteria: true energy security still resides in domestic control, not pipelines and cables stretching half-a-continent away.

.

In the aftermath, expect Xlinks to regroup, rebrand and regroup again—perhaps pitching Canadian hydro next. .

But the core lesson stands: citizens will not subsidize grid fantasies when they can invest in less risky generation at home. And bureaucrats will not ignore security and cost overruns when climate dogma collides with the hard calculus of budgets and ballots.

.

There is an understated joy in witnessing this particular techno-dream deflate.

It reminds us that even the most elaborate green schemes are only as sound as their financial footings and geopolitical foundations.

When those falter, the utopian narrative gives way to something far more earthy: the simple recognition that expensive, complex, and foreign-dependent projects rarely survive contact with reality.

.

As the Sahara sun fades—quite literally—from policymakers’ agendas, one hopes the next set of proposals will be a little more modest, a bit less global, and anchored firmly within UK borders.

,

Addition

.

CO2 IS AN ABSOLUTELY VITAL GAS/INGREDIENT FOR GROWING FLORA AND FAUNA; NET ZERO IS A SUICIDE PACT

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-an-absolutely-v...

By Willem Post

.

The IPCC, etc., has dubbed CO2 as having magical global warming power, based on its own “science”
The IPCC, etc., claims, CO2 acts as Climate Control Knob, that eventually will cause runaway Climate Change, if we continue using fossil fuels.
The IPCC, etc., denies the Little Ice Age, uses fraudulent computer temperature projections.

.

Governments proclaimed: Go Wind and Solar, Go ENERGIEWENDE, go Net zero by 2050, etc., and provided oodles of subsidies, and rules and regulations, and mandates, and prohibitions to make it happen.
.
Net-zero by 2050 to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact, to 1) increase command/control by governments, and 2) enable the moneyed elites to become more powerful and richer, at the expense of all others, by using the foghorn of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media to spread scare-mongering slogans and brainwash people, already for at least 40 years.

.

CO2, just 0.042% in the atmosphere, is a weak absorber of a small fraction of the absorbable, low-energy IR photons.
CO2 has near-zero influence on world surface temperatures.

Greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere is an absolutely essential ingredient for: 1) increased green flora, which increases fauna all over the world, and 2) increased crop yields to better feed 8 billion people.

.

At About 30% Annual W/S Electricity on the Grid, Various Costs Increase Exponentially

The weather-dependent, variable/intermittent W/S output, often too-little and often too-much, creates grid-disturbing difficulties that become increasingly more challenging and more costly/kWh to counteract, as proven by the UK and California for the past 5 years, and Germany for the past 10 years, and recently in Spain/Portugal.

.

All have “achieved” near-zero, real- growth GDPs, the highest electricity prices/kWh in the EU, and stagnant real wages for almost all people, while further enriching the jet-setting elites who live in the poshest places.

.

Their angry, over-taxed, over-regulated native populations are further burdened by the elites bringing in tens of millions of uninvited, unvetted, uneducated, inexperienced poor folks from all over; a chaotic, culture-clashing burden the native populations never voted for.

.

The W/S subsidies uglified the countryside, killed birds and bats, whales and dolphins, fisheries, tourism, viewsheds, etc.

But the climate is not any different, even though, atmosphere CO2 increased from 280 ppm in 1850 to 420 ppm in 2025, 50% in 175 years. During that time, world surface temps increased by about 1.5 C +/- 0.25 C, of which: 

.

1) Urban heat islands account for about 65% (0.65 x 1.5 = 0.975 C), such as about 700 miles from north of Portland, Maine, to south of Norfolk, Virginia, forested in 1850, now covered with heat-absorbing human detritus, plus the waste heat of fuel burning. Japan, China, India, Europe, etc., have similar heat islands

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/05/16/live-at-1-p-m-eastern-shock-...

2) CO2 accounts for at most 0.5 C, with the rest from

3) Long-term, inter-acting cycles, such as coming out of the Little Ice Age, 

4) Earth surface volcanic activity, and other changes, such as from increased agriculture, deforestation, especially in the Tropics, etc.

.

BTW, the 1850 surface temp measurements were only in a few locations and mostly inaccurate, +/- 0.5 C.

The 1979-to-present temp measurements (46 years) cover most of the earth surface and are more accurate, +/- 0.25 C, due to NASA satellites.

Any graphs should show accuracy bands.

The wiggles in below image are due to plants rotting late in the year in the Northern Hemisphere, emitting CO2, plants growing early in the year, consuming CO2, mostly in the Northern Hemisphere.

https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/about.html

.

Europe Attempts to Entangle US with Expensive Offshore Windmills that Produce Expensive Electricity

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/europe-attempts-to-ent...

By Willem Post

.

Net zero by 2050 Euro elites tried to entangle the US, with help of the unpatriotic, leftist Biden clique, into going down the black hole of 30,000 MW by 2030 of expensive, highly-subsidized, weather-dependent, grid-disturbing offshore windmill systems, which would need expensive, highly subsidized, short-lived, battery systems for grid support.

.

The windmills would have produced electricity at about 15 c/kWh, about 2.5 times greater than from US-fueled gas, coal, nuclear, reservoir hydro plants. Such expensive W/S electricity would have made the US even less competitive in world markets.

Any US tariffs on the European supply of wind systems would greatly increase their turnkey capital costs/MW and their electricity costs/ kWh.

.

Almost the entire supply of the wind projects would be designed and made in Europe, then transported across the Atlantic Ocean by European specialized ships, then unloaded at new, taxpayer-financed, $500-million storage/pre-assembly/staging/barge-loading areas, then barged to European specialized erection ships for erection of the windmill systems. The financing would be mostly by European pension funds, that pay benefits to European retirees.

. 

Hundreds of people in each seashore state would have jobs during the erection phase

The other erection jobs would be by specialized European people, mostly on cranes and ships

.

Hundreds of people in each seashore state would have long-term O&M jobs, using mostly European spare parts, during the 20-y electricity production phase.

.

Conglomerates owned by Euro elites would finance, build, erect, own and operate almost all of the 30,000 MW of offshore windmills, providing work for many thousands of European workers for decades, and multi-$billion profits each year.

.
That Euro offshore wind ruse did not work out, because Trump was elected.

Trump hating Euro elites are furious. Projects are being cancelled. The European windmill industry is in shambles, with multi-$billion annual losses, lay-offs and tens of $billions of stranded costs.

.

Trump spared the US from the W/S evils inflicted by the leftist, woke Democrat cabal, that used an autopen for Biden signatures, and pulled the strings of an on-the-beach/in-the-basement Biden, an increasingly dysfunctional Marionette.
.

Trump declared a National Energy Emergency, and put W/S/B systems at the bottom of the list, and suspended their licenses to put their rushed, glossy environmental impact statements, EIS, under proper scrutiny.

.

Euro elites used the IPCC-invented, “CO2-is-evil” hoax, based on its own “science”.

These elites used:

1) the foghorn of government-subsidized Corporate Media to propagate scare-mongering slogans and brainwash the people,

2) censorship to suppress free thinking on town hall forums,

3) election interference, as in Moldova and Georgia,

4) ostracizing /marginalizing major political parties to produce desired outcomes, as in Germany.

.

Wall Street elites saw an opportunity for tax shelters for its elite clients.

Woke politicians were “cut-in” on $juicy deals to pass subsidies, favorable rules and regulations, and impose government mandates.

Euro elites wanted the US to deliver electricity to users at very high c/kWh, to preserve Europe’s extremely advantageous trade balance with the US.

 https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/international-trade-is...

.

THE US HAS LOPSIDED TRADE AGREEMENTS WITH ALMOST ALL “TRADING PARTNERS”

https://willempost.substack.com/p/the-us-has-lopsided-trade-agreeme...

By Willem Post

.

Before NAFTA, Canada and Mexico always had annual trade deficits with the US
After NAFTA, Canada and Mexico, with investments by European and Asian companies, have huge DUTY-FREE annual trade surpluses with the US.

.

After NAFTA, foreign (and US) companies shipped parts to Mexico and assembled cars, with their entire production shipped DUTY-FREE into the US.

That is Trojan Horse exploitation that is sucking wealth/jobs from the US.

.

After NAFTA, Dutch companies shipped automated greenhouses, the size of airplane hangars, to Canada (which provides almost- free gas and electricity as an incentive), with almost their entire production shipped DUTY-FREE into the US.

That is Trojan Horse exploitation that is sucking wealth/jobs from the US

.

Dutch/Belgian conglomerates own more than 50% of the food supermarkets on the US East Coast.

That means plenty of shelf space for European farm goods to the disadvantage of US farmers.

Europe has been doing this since the disastrous 1960s Kennedy Round, which opened US markets, without the US getting any lower tariffs and lower non-tariff barriers from Europe.
Euro elites loved Kennedy

.
Free Trade?

Japan has a 700% tariff on US rice. India has a 100% tariff on US rice, Egypt has a 65% average tariff on all US goods. Canada has a 290% tariff on US dairy products.

Canada’s current economy would not be viable without the US as a neighbor. Same with Mexico

.

Living in Vermont, we buy, throughout the year, electricity (GMP), propane (IRVING), gasoline (IRVING), and some greenhouse vegetables and flowers from heavily subsidized Canadian/Dutch/French companies in Quebec.
Perot, a Texas businessman, predicted NAFTA would be sucking tens of $billions of wealth and millions of jobs out of the US. Deluded, brainwashed Americans laughed at Perot at that time.

CBS News “reported” 70,500 American factories (millions of jobs lost) have closed since the start of NAFTA

.
Trump is doing the right thing with tariffs to increase US production of goods and services for domestic use and export,

that will employ tens of millions of workers, build strong families and communities, and will reduce imports of goods and services, and will transform decades of wealth/job-sucking trade deficits into trade surpluses to MAGA

German Economist: Trump Tariffs are Saving US

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/german-economist-trump...

.

US has Trade Deficits with Many Countries

Hindsight is 20/20, but Bill Clinton’s decision to admit China into the WTO ranks among the greatest strategic blunders in modern history. Everything he promised would happen turned out to be the exact opposite.

.

If Europe, China, etc., do not like US tariffs, why do they have their own tariffs and non-tariff barriers?

In response to US tariffs:

.

- Vietnam finally reduced its tariffs to ZERO, but that is no big deal, because its sales to the US were $136.6 billion, and it bought from the US $13.1 billion, in 2024.

 

- Taiwan wants to reduce its tariffs to ZERO, but that is not a big deal, because its sales to the US were $116.26 billion, but it bought from the US $42.34 billion, in 2024.

 

- Countries with trade surpluses should think first and act after. They should:

 

1) Not retaliate with tariffs, and

2) Eliminate tariff barriers and non-tariff barriers, and

3) Buy more US goods and services to reduce their trade surpluses to zero.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Vietna...

.

Europe Colludes with Others to Obstruct Trump’s Tariffs

Europe is arranging and coordinating a group of ideological allies to collude with counter sanctions.  Those allies include Canada and to a lesser extent, Mexico.  Trump is onto their collusion. He said, if Europe colludes with Canada to harm the US, higher US tariffs will be placed on both of them.

.

Finally, the US is lucky to have a hard-nosed businessman in the White House, who cannot be $bought, instead of a senile, grifting/grafting, dysfunctional marionette, or, God-forbid, an inane, cackling word salad.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/international-trade-is...

.

When will woke Euro elites finally admit, increased CO2 ppm, an essential, life-creating gas, is needed to grow more flora and fauna, and increase crop yields to feed 8 billion people?

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-has-a-very-minor-r...

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/we-are-in-a-co2-famine

.

How Effective are the US Tariffs?

US international trade of imports and exports of goods and services

January 2025: Exports: $269.8 billion; Imports: $401.2 billion; Deficit: $131.4 billion 

February 2025: Exports: $278.0 billion; Imports: $401.1 billion; Deficit: $123.1 billion 

March 2025; Exports: $281.1 billion; Imports: $419.4 billion; Deficit: $138.3 billion 

April 2025: Exports: $289.4 billion; Imports: $351.0 billion; Deficit: $61.6 billion

Exports increased about $20 billion and imports decreased about $50 billion after 4 months in 2025

.

Trump imposed the following tariffs on Europe: Steel and Aluminum 50%; Imported cars 25%; Other sectors: Investigations were launched into pharmaceuticals, copper, and other sectors to potentially impose further tariffs 

.

In response, Europe, Japan, Korea, etc., have maintained prices of its cars to avoid losing US market share. However, Ford Motor's total sales are up 6.1% to 930,925 vehicles sold compared with the first five months of 2024.

Ford assembles 80% of its cars in the US. General Motors and Stellantis about 55%

.

GM recently announced plans to spend $4 billion to retool the 1) Orion Assembly Plant in Michigan, 2) Fairfax Assembly Plant in Kansas, and Spring Hill Manufacturing in Tennessee, which would add some 300,000 units of production back to America. Domestic production could increase from 60% to 75% of US demand by 2030, due to tariffs, according to Barron’s.

.

Europe in Big Do-Do

https://willempost.substack.com/p/europe-in-big-do-do?r=1n3sit&...

By Willem Post

.

Europe is in poor shape. It has a decreasing/stagnant GDP, stagnant real wages, major civil unrest, and tens of millions of incompatible, subversive, walk-ins, who will undermine, instead of fight for traditional European values and culture.
.

Euro elites, having lost the wind/solar “climate war”, need a new enemy to distract and unify the people.

Euro elites doing Russo-phobic, saber rattling to aid Ukraine is empty posturing, without the US “backstop”

Russia, with a growing GDP, despite sanctions, a unified people, gaining on the battlefield, would just roll over and play dead?

.

Trump would be an idiot to agree to prolonging the Russia-Ukraine conflict with the US “backstop”, as demanded by the UK, because it would be a major drain on US finances for years, and a huge distraction regarding MAGA.

.

However, the Deep State and in Congress, most Democrats and some Republicans would love it. 
Musk is getting close to divulge how many of these Members of Congress are outperforming investment professionals on Wall Street. They have no problem defending/financing corrupt Ukraine, an undemocratic state, where:

.

1) Elections were canceled (also in Rumania), or stolen (also in Moldova), and Le Pen was sidelined in France

2) The Russian Orthodox Church was banned,

3) Political opponents were silenced/tortured/killed,

4) The USAID-subsidized pro-Ukraine media were put under total government control, “because of martial law”

.

Germany, the UK, France, etc., are in Chaotic De-growth Mode

Their Euro elites are forcing populations to put up with, and pay for, tens of millions of unvetted walks-ins, who make minimal contributions, cause maximal pain, crime and chaos, all while sucking from the government tit.

Spending more on defense and Net-Zero green stuff, will be accelerating de-growth

.

The woke elites in Europe and the US are pre-maturely closing, already-paid-for, in-good-working-order, nuclear plants.

The woke elites have banned 1) oil and gas fracking projects, 2) gas/oil pipelines, 3) gas/oil storage systems near power plants, and 4) new energy exploration projects, as part of "leaving it in the ground"

.

The US should not bail out Europe by exporting its valuable coal, oil and LNG.

The US should use them to make more products and services for domestic use and exports.

That way the US would reduce imports and increase exports, which would rapidly decrease our decades of wealth/job-sucking trade deficits, and would employ tens of millions of additional US workers, which would strengthen families and communities.

.

The very important results of DOGE are not reported by the leftist, USAID-subsidized, Corporate US Media, but the criticisms of DOGE are reported 24/7/365.

The people in New England, the US and Europe are permanently kept in the dark, already for at least 5 decades, or more.

The Social-Media, by gaining eyeballs, is quickly ending the Corporate-Media monopoly, which is losing eyeballs. 

But the Euro elites are hell-bent to put social media in straight-jackets ASAP, because they provide a public forum for free speech.

.

Trade Deficits, Balance-of-Payment Deficits, Debt

Trump is trying to reduce 50 years of trade deficits and balance-of-payment deficits.
Trump is trying to reduce decades of waste fraud and abuse in the federal government, which leads to deficit spending, due to no controls, computers not talking to each other, ancient software systems.
Trump is trying to undo the open border bull crap, DEI bull crap, gender bull crap, etc.

Without a doubt, this means stepping on many people’s toes.
Would you rather have 10 years of 1930s-style depression?

.
Deficit spending and printing Treasury bonds to “paper” the deficit is inflationary, because that “out-of-thin-air money” comes with an interest rate and a national debt.
Right now, the interest on the national debt is more than ONE $TRILLION PER YEAR.
That interest is “paid for” with printing more Treasury bonds to “paper” the interest.
On and on it goes, whistling past the graveyard, stretching the rubber band.
.
Very often, many of our wealth/job-sucking trading “partners” use the money of their trade surpluses to: 1) buy Treasury bonds, 2) buy US companies, 3) invest in their own export industries to increase exports, 4) pay benefits to retirees, etc.
.
Example of “Rules-Based” Rip-Off
Trading partners charge high prices for auto parts sent to Mexico, then assemble these “expensive” parts in their Mexico assembly plants, then ship whole cars to their dealerships into the US, DUTY FREE.
That way minimal tax is paid on near-zero profits reported in the US, maximum profits are reported in home countries, and maximum taxes are paid on these profits to home governments. Our trading “partners” love this racket.
.
All of that has nothing to do with “quantitative easing”, i.e., the Federal Reserve declaring it has money, which it loans to banks and other financial entities that over-extended themselves on issuing dubious loans, such as MBOs, etc.
The US is in very deep debt-do-do. Trading “partners” aim to keep the US in its do-do, while professing “to be helpful”.

.

PEACE WOULD BE A BLESSING FOR UKRAINE

https://willempost.substack.com/p/peace-would-be-a-blessing-for-ukr...

By Willem Post

.

THE IMPOVERISHED, DYSFUNCTIONAL STATE OF MAINE

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-dysfunctional-stat...

By Willem Post
.

The over-taxed, over-regulated, already-impoverished Maine people are super-screwed, trying to make ends meet in a near-zero, real growth Maine economy
The Maine economy has lots of low-tech/low-pay/low-benefit, bs jobs
The Maine economy has lots of woke, leftist bureaucrats
Screwed-over Mainers also have to pay for poverty-stricken, aliens of different cultures from all over, who illegally enter the US, a federal felony
.
Those unvetted, illegal, often voting aliens from all-over:
- are the dregs of Third World countries, sent to Maine by their US-hating, leftist, woke governments, in cahoots with Soros/Biden-financed NGOs
- are getting free housing, free food, a never-empty credit card, free phones, free healthcare, free education/job training and whatever other goodies they want.

.

They mainly suck from the government tit:
- have no skills, no training, no education, no modern industrial experience.
- will take low-tech/low-pay/low-benefit jobs at 30% less than screwed-over Mainers.
- are often good at crime, murder, rape, drug and human trafficking, and driving vehicles into native merrymakers.

- the tens of millions of incompatible, subversive, walk-ins would rather undermine, instead of fight for traditional European and US values and culture. 
.
Many millions of illegal aliens have to be shipped back where they came from, before they forever ruin the US, as they ruined Europe, France ,the UK, Ireland, Spain, etc.
.
Down-trodden Mainers often have to put up with the visual ugliness and noise of hundreds of windmills, that are often idle, because of too little wind year-round, and many thousands of acres of solar panels, that are often covered with snow and ice in winter; there is no solar at night.
.

Down-trodden Maine families also have to endure the insults of government-imposed mandates of having their girls compete with “boys” on girls’ teams, and “sharing” girl bathrooms and locker rooms, and “losing” their matches to the “boys”, all as mandated by woke Governor Mills, surrounded by her cabal of idiots and her ingrown clique of bureaucrats sucking from the government tit.
.
Net-zero by 2050 to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact, to increase command/control by governments, and enable the moneyed elites to get richer, at the expense of all others, by using the foghorn of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media to spread scare-mongering slogans and brainwash people.

.

Ignore CO2, because greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere is an absolutely essential ingredient for: 1) increased green flora to increase fauna all over the world, and 2) increased crop yields to feed 8 billion people.

.

EXPENSIVE FLOATING OFFSHORE WINDMILLS IN IMPOVERISHED STATE OF MAINE

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind...

By Willem Post

.

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 850-ft-tall floating offshore windmills, each mounted on a 50% submerged, steel platform at least 250 ft x 250 ft x 75 ft tall to maintain the windmill in upright position in all conditions.

. 

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)

. 

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.

. 

About 500 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 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 $375 million, 50% of project, at 6.0%/y for 20 years, 9.194 c/kWh.

Owner return on $375 million, 50% of project, at 10%/y for 20 years, 12.385 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 9.194 + 12.385 + 8 + 3 + 4 = 36.579 c/kWh

Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 18.290 c/kWh

Owner sells to utility at 18.290 c/kWh

Onshore grid expansion/reinforcements, 2 c/kWh

Curtailments/Counteracting 24/7/365, 4 c/kWh

Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt

. 

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, very-low particulate/kWh

Nuclear plants, with low-cost, zero particulate/kWh

Hydro plants, with low-cost, zero particulate/kWh

.

Net-zero by 2050 to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact, to increase command/control by governments, and enable the moneyed elites to get richer, at the expense of all others, by using the foghorn of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media to spread scare-mongering slogans and brainwash people.

.

Ignore CO2, because greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere is an absolutely essential ingredient for: 1) increased green flora to increase fauna all over the world, and 2) increased crop yields to feed 8 billion people. 

.

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 system

There 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.

.

The whole set-up is s super-expensive nightmare, the extent of which has been clear in Germany for the past 10 years and the UK for the past 5 years.

Both have “achieved” near-zero, real- growth GDP, the highest electricity prices in Europe, and stagnant real wages.

The W/S variable output, or too-little output, or too-much output, creates operational difficulties that become increasingly more challenging and expensive to counteract.

. 

Maine Folks Need Lower Energy Bills, Not Higher Energy Bills

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. 

.

THE DYSFUNCTIONAL STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS WITH GIANT BATTERIES

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-dysfunctional-stat...

By Willem Post

.

A recent announcement is for a statewide, 4-h battery system, installed capacity 5000 MW/20,000 MWh.

Tesla recommends not charging to more than 80% full and not discharging to less than 20% full, to achieve normal life of 15 years and normal aging at 1.5%/y.
The delivered capacity would be 20,000 MWh x 0.6, Tesla factor x aging factor x 0.9, outage factor = 10,800 MWh

The batteries would 1) absorb midday solar peaks and deliver the electricity during peak hours of late afternoon/early evening, and 2) stabilize the grid, due to varying W/S output, 24/7/365

The turnkey cost would be about $600/installed kWh, delivered as AC at battery outlet, 2024 pricing, or $600/kWh x 20 million kWh = $12.0 billion, about every 15 years.

There will be annually increasing insurance costs for risky W/S/B projects.

If 50% were borrowed from banks, the cost of amortizing $6 billion at 6% over 15 years = $608 million/y

If 50% were from Owners, the cost of amortizing $6 billion at 10% over 15 years = $774 million/y

The two items total $1,382 million/y; another hell-of-a-big subsidy for W/S systems

There are many more cost items

Less 50% subsidies (tax credits, 5-y depreciation, loan interest deduction, etc.)

Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...

.

No banks will finance W/S/B projects at acceptable interest rates and no insurance companies will insure them at acceptable premiums, no matter what the leftist, woke bureaucrats are announcing.
The sooner the U-turn, the better for New England, the US and Europe

.

NOTE: Trump has declared a National Energy Emergency. A new gas line from Pennsylvania to New England and new gas/oil storage systems near each CCGT power plant are needed, because most of the “planned” W/S/B systems will never be built, especially after the application of tariffs.

.

NEW ENGLAND ELECTRICITY 100% FROM WIND AND SOLAR by 2050?

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-england-electricit...

By Willem Post

.
New England has Net Zero nut cases. They know nothing about energy systems and fantasize lots of nonsense.

“Keep it in the ground”, they say. “All electricity from wind and solar”, they say.
When presented with numbers and facts their eyes glaze over

Here is a simple analysis, if no fossil fuels, no nuclear, and minimal other sources of electricity

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-example-of-ele...

.

It is assumed, 1) all W/S output, based on historic weather data, is loaded into batteries, 2) all demand is drawn from batteries, based on historic load on the grid, as published by ISO-NE.

An annual storage balance was created, which needed to stay well above zero; the batteries are not allowed to "run dry" in bad W/S years. The balance was used to determine the wind and solar capacities needed to achieve it.

.

New England would need a battery system with a capacity of about 10 TWh of DELIVERABLE electricity from batteries to HV grid.

Daily W/S output would be fed to the batteries, 140 TWh/y

Daily demand would be drawn from the batteries, 115 TWh/y in 2024

Battery system roundtrip loss, HV to HV, would be 25 TWh/y, more with aging

Transmission and Distribution to users incur additional losses of about 8%, or 0.08 x 115 = 9.2 TWh 

The battery system would cover any multi-day W/S lulls throughout the year
Batteries would supplement W/S output, as needed, 24/7/365
W/S would charge excess output into the batteries, 24/7/365 
Tesla recommends not charging to more than 80% full and not discharging to less than 20% full, to achieve normal life of 15 years and normal aging at 1.5%/y.
The INSTALLED battery capacity would need to be about 10 TWh / (0.6, Tesla factor x aging factor x 0.9, outage factor) = 18.5 TWh, delivered as AC at battery outlet.
The turnkey cost would be about $600/installed kWh, delivered as AC at battery outlet, 2024 pricing, or $600/kWh x 18.5 billion kWh = $11.1 trillion, about every 15 years.

I did not mention annually increasing insurance costs of risky W/S projects.

If 50% were borrowed from banks, the cost of amortizing $5.5 trillion at 6% over 15 years = $557 billion/y

If 50% were from Owners, the cost of amortizing $5.5 trillion at 10% over 15 years = $708 billion/y

The two items total $1265 billion/y, about the same as the New England GDP.

There are many more cost items

Less 50% subsidies (tax credits, 5-y depreciation, loan interest deduction)

Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...

.

No banks will finance W/S projects at acceptable interest rates and no insurance companies will insure them at acceptable premiums, no matter what the woke bureaucrats are pronouncing.
The sooner the U-turn, the better for New England, US and Europe

.

BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...

by Willem Post

. 

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 (tax credits, 5-y depreciation, loan interest deduction) is 92.3c/kWh

Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt
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 charge above 80% and not discharge below 20%, to perform 24/7/365 service for 15 y, with normal aging.

Owners of battery systems with fires, likely charged above 80% and discharged below 20% to maximize profits.

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.

.

HIGH COST/kWh OF W/S SYSTEMS FOISTED ONTO A BRAINWASHED PUBLIC 

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-cost-kwh-of-w-s-s...

By Willem Post

.

What is generally not known, the more weather-dependent W/S systems, the less efficient the traditional generators, as they inefficiently counteract the increasingly larger ups and downs of W/S output. See URL

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reduction...

.

W/S systems add great cost to the overall delivery of electricity to users; the more W/S systems, the higher the cost/kWh, as proven by the UK and Germany, with the highest electricity rates in Europe, and near-zero, real-growth GDP.

See URL

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reduction...

.

At about 30% W/S, the entire system hits an increasingly thicker concrete wall, operationally and cost wise.

The UK and Germany are hitting the wall, more and more hours each day.
The cost of electricity delivered to users increased with each additional W/S/B system

.

Nuclear, gas, coal and reservoir hydro plants are the only rational way forward.

Ignore CO2, because greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere is an absolutely essential ingredient for: 1) increased green flora to increase fauna all over the world, and 2) increased crop yields to feed 8 billion people.  XXX

.
Net-zero by 2050 to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact, to increase command/control by governments, and enable the moneyed elites to get richer, at the expense of all others, by using the foghorn of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media to spread scare-mongering slogans and brainwash people.

.

Ignore CO2, because greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere is an absolutely essential ingredient for: 1) increased green flora to increase fauna all over the world, and 2) increased crop yields to feed 8 billion people.

.

Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt:

1) Federal and state tax credits, up to 50% (Community tax credit of 10 percent – Federal tax credit of 30 percent - State tax credit and other incentives of up to 10%);

2) 5-y Accelerated Depreciation write off of the entire project;

3) Loan interest deduction

.

Utilities pay 15 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from fixedoffshore wind systems

Utilities pay 18 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from floating offshore wind

Utilities pay 12 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from larger solar systems

.

Excluded costs, at a future 30% W/S annual penetration on the grid, based on UK and German experience: 

- Onshore grid expansion/reinforcement to connect distributed W/S systems, about 2 c/kWh

- A fleet of traditional power plants to quickly counteract W/S variable output, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, which leads to more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh

- A fleet of traditional power plants to provide electricity during 1) low-wind periods, 2) high-wind periods, when rotors are locked in place, and 3) low solar periods during mornings, evenings, at night, snow/ice on panels, which leads to more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh

- Pay W/S system Owners for electricity they could have produced, if not curtailed, about 1 c/kWh

- Importing electricity at high prices, when W/S output is low, 1 c/kWh

- Exporting electricity at low prices, when W/S output is high, 1 c/kWh

- Disassembly on land and at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh

Some of these values exponentially increase as more W/S systems are added to the grid
.
The economic/financial insanity and environmental damage of it all is off the charts.
No wonder Europe’s near-zero, real-growth economy is in de-growth mode.

That economy has been tied into knots by inane people.

YOUR tax dollars are building these projects so YOU will have much higher electric bills.

Remove YOUR tax dollars using your vote, and none of these projects would be built, and YOUR electric bills would be lower.

.

.

Norwegian-Owned Empire Wind, 810 MW; turnkey capital cost $5 Billion; Bank loans $3 Billion; Investors stake $2 Billion; Cost/kW = $5 Billion/810 MW = $6170/kW

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/empire-wind-810-mw-tur...

By Willem Post

.

New York State Utilities will be paid foreign Owners 15.5 c/kWh for 20 to 25 years

New York State Utilities will mark this up before averaging it into their cost of purchased electricity.

Ratepayers and taxpayers ARE BEING SO SCREWED

.

Per various laws, the federal government and NY State government will pay enough subsidies so the foreign Owners can sell for 15.5 c/kWh, for 20 to 25 years, instead of 30 c/kWh, without any subsidies, such as:

.

1) Federal and state tax credits, up to 50% (Community tax credit of up to 10% – Federal tax credit of 30% - State tax credit and other incentives of up to 10%);

2) 5-y Accelerated Depreciation write off of the entire project;

3) Loan interest deduction to reduce any taxable profits from whatever source.

Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt

. 

Utilities pay at least 15 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from fixed offshore wind systems

Utilities pay at least 18 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from floating offshore wind

Utilities pay at least 12 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from larger solar systems

.

Excluded costs, at a future 30% W/S annual penetration on the grid, based on UK and German experience: 

- Onshore grid expansion/reinforcement to connect distributed W/S systems, about 2 c/kWh

- A fleet of traditional power plants to quickly counteract W/S variable output, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, which leads to more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh

- A fleet of traditional power plants to provide electricity during 1) low-wind periods, 2) high-wind periods, when rotors are locked in place, and 3) low solar periods during mornings, evenings, at night, snow/ice on panels, which leads to more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh

- Pay W/S system Owners for electricity they could have produced, if not curtailed, about 1 c/kWh

- Importing electricity at high prices, when W/S output is low, 1 c/kWh

- Exporting electricity at low prices, when W/S output is high, 1 c/kWh

- Disassembly on land and at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh

Some of these values exponentially increase as more W/S systems are added to the grid
.
The economic/financial insanity and environmental damage of it all is off the charts.
No wonder Europe’s near-zero, real-growth economy is in de-growth mode.

That economy has been tied into knots by inane people.

YOUR tax dollars are building these projects so YOU will have much higher electric bills.

Remove YOUR tax dollars using your vote, and none of these projects would be built, and YOUR electric bills would be lower.

.

NUCLEAR PLANTS TOO EXPENSIVE?

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/nuclear-plants-too-exp...

By Willem Post

. 

In France, the turnkey cost of the 1,600 MW Flamanville plant was $13.7 billion, or $8,563/installed MW

Plants built by Russia, China and South Korea are about $5,500/installed MW

Expensive nuclear plant building is strictly a "rules-based" Western thing.

.

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 $28.75 billion, or about $5,990/kW, 

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 Iran, Rosatom started site preparation for a nuclear power plant at the Bushehr site.

Phase 1: Unit 1 went on line in 2012.

Phase 2: 2 VVER-1000 units, each 1050 MW. Construction started March 2017. Units 2 and 3 to be completed in 2024 and 2026.

.

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

.

Russia is the only country with nuclear powered ice breakers.

The biggest ones steadily go through up to 7 METERS of ice.

.

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

In the US, 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, 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 places

They last about 15 to 20 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 produced

. 

Major 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.

.

EXPENSIVE FLOATING OFFSHORE WINDMILLS IN SUPER-RICH NORWAY 

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind...

By Willem Post

.

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 

Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt

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

.

UK, GERMANY, ETC., USING NORWAY RESERVOIR HYDRO PLANTS AS A BATTERY SYSTEM  

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/uk-germany-etc-using-n...

By Willem Post

.

Norway gets 90% of electricity from reservoir hydro plants and 10% from west coast windmills.
Because of long distances, there is little connection between the north and south grid.
Any draw by the UK during W/S underproduction affects the south grid.
.
The grid is pumped by generators to a voltage with 50-cycle electromagnetic waves which travel at near the speed of light. Electrons do not travel. They just vibrate at 50 Hz
.

Any UK underproduction, resulting in voltage drops, is immediately sensed about 800 miles away, and compensated for, by automatically opening the water valves to hydro turbines in Norway.
.
A few years ago, during a W/S lull, Norway oversupplied Germany and the UK, which resulted in much higher wholesale prices in the south grid, too low water levels in reservoirs, rationing, aka blackouts/brownouts, and lots of Norwegians with mandated EVs and mandated heat pumps being very angry.
.

This time the W/S lull happened again, and, just like that, the Rightist party coalition was out, because it lost a party. The leftist Labor party formed a new coalition government with a new Cabinet, which may, or may not, remedy the situation; Stoltenberg, formerly of NATO, became finance minister.

Never-the-less INSTANT DEMOCRACY.

.

Norway should have tariffs

Low tariff, on top of low wholesale price, on in-coming electricity

Very high tariff, on top of high wholesale price, on out-going electricity.

.

THE UK, GERMANY, SPAIN, FRANCE, ETC., ARE IN DEEP DO-DO, BECAUSE WIND/SOLAR SYSTEMS PROVIDE ZERO SYNCHRONOUS INERTIA TO THE GRID

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-uk-germany-spain-f...

By Willem Post

.

The UK Conservative and La, using the foghorn of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media, brainwashed the people to vote for them for decades.

Those voters ended up having the highest electric bills, i.e., total bill divided by consumed electricity, c/kWh, while the elite Owners are laughing all the way to the bank.

.

Any energy systems analyst would know Spain/Portugal-like blackout problems would eventually happen, before a single W/S system were connected to the grid, but naive, woke, technically illiterate enviros do not want to listen to the pros. All wind/solar/battery nonsense must be stopped dead by taking away the generous subsidies.

.

The More W/S Electricity on the Grid, the Less the CO2 Reduction/kWh, due to Inefficiencies

Analysis of 2013 data of the island Irish grid showed the CCGT fleet operating at about 50% without wind; at 45.58%, with 17% wind.
At higher W%, the CCGT fleet operates at lesser efficiencies (high Btu/kWh, high CO2/kWh), until no CO2 is reduced.
Fortunately, Brussels paid for major connections to the much larger UK and French grids.

As a result, most of the ups and downs of wind output disappeared in the noise of the large grids.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reduction...

.

Expensive Wind/Solar Systems

The over-taxed, over-regulated taxpayers and ratepayers are paying at very high rates, c/kWh, for: 1) electricity, and 2) Heat Pump heating/cooling, and 3) EV driving.

There is no way such high-cost electricity would increase standards of living and increase the GDP.

Businesses and skilled people would move to low-energy-cost states.

These businesses and people are tired of paying for:

.

1) Highly subsidized, expensive W/S systems that disturb the grid with weather-dependent, variable, intermittent electricity, which has caused expensive brownouts/blackouts, as in Spain/Portugal, California, Texas, New England, etc., and many other places, over the years.

2) Grid expansion to connect all these far-flung wind/solar systems to the grid,

3) Grid reinforcements to ensure the grids do not crash during periods with higher levels of W/S power

. 

Here are some operational realities of W/S systems that are at the core of their problems:

.

Synchronous Rotational Inertia, SRI, Stabilizes the Grid

Closing down traditional plants (nuclear, gas, coal, hydro), with rotating generators that provide SRI, de-stabilizes the grid; a death sentence for the grid.

.

Wind/solar systems provide ZERO SRI to help stabilize the grid, because their variable outputs are digitized, then reconstituted into an artificial sine wave with the same phase and frequency as the grid.

Super expensive battery systems provide ZERO SRI.

Battery systems can provide virtual inertia, at very high c/kWh, by means of their back-end DC to AC power electronics (which failed in Spain/Portugal), which can quickly counteract voltage/frequency drops for a short time.

.

Connections Between Grids

Almost all grids have connections to other grids for import and export purposes.

About 50% of such connections are high-voltage, direct-current lines, HVDC

Such DC connections transfer power, but transfer ZERO SRI to other grids.

.

Reactive Power

No AC grid can function without positive reactive power; say power factor of 0.8

Wind/solar systems draw reactive power FROM the grid; say power factor of -0.8

All traditional power plants are automatically set up to feed positive reactive power TO the grid.

.

Synchronous Condenser Systems

The weather-dependent, variable/intermittent, wind/solar feed-ins to the grid often create transmission faults.

Those faults are often minimized with synchronous-condenser systems that provide positive reactive power TO the grid.

 

Blackouts 

In case of too much W/S power, it needs to be curtailed.

Owners usually get paid for what they could have produced.

.

In case of too little W/S power or a W/S outage, reliable, quick-reacting CCGT plants, in Standard Operating Procedure, SOP, mode, would:
.
1) Provide a few seconds of SRI "ride-through" to give switches time to switch, and
2) Provide power to the grid, within seconds, to counteract voltage/frequency drops, 24/7/365

3) Enable automatic load shedding to take place, as needed, etc.

.

NOTE: If battery systems were used, they would be empty after a few hours, with no prospect of a black grid to refill them.
.
NOTE: Spain/Portugal would have needed about 10,000 MW of CCGT plants in SOP mode to avoid its recent blackout.
As a fleet, they would operate at up to 75% output throughout the year, and quickly provide up to 2500 MW, in case of a W/S outage. 
.
Black Start Procedure for a 100 MW CCGT Power Plant

.
Initial Power Source: The on-site auxiliary generator is started. It provides power to critical plant systems, including control, safety, and communication systems. 
Plant Startup: The auxiliary generator then powers the CCGT plant's essential systems. This includes cooling systems, fuel handling systems, and starting the gas turbine.
Connecting to the Grid: After the CCGT plant is spinning at 3600 rpm at the same phase and frequency as the grid, it can be connected to the grid to supply power to its section of the grid. That section powers another power plant, etc., until all sections are up and running. Only then, grid-destabilizing W/S systems are connected.

.