Vineyard Wind: a ‘Dormant Wind Farm Graveyard’ Without GE Renewables?

Vineyard Wind: a ‘Dormant Wind Farm Graveyard’ Without GE Renewables?

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vineyard-wind-a-dorman...

Linda Bonvie

.

As Vineyard Wind makes its concerns public, one striking fact proves significant: there is no apparent funding set aside for decommissioning should the project fail.

NO DECOMMISSIONING/REMOVAL FUND

.

HOW IS IT THAT A $4.5 BILLION PROJECT, FULLY SANCTIONED TO BE BUILT BY U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, FUNDED IN PART BY 27 BANKS FOR OVER $2 BILLION, AND SPEARHEADED BY TWO LARGE FOREIGN CORPORATIONS, IS TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON THE “SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE” OF JUST ONE COMPANY?

ACCORDING TO KLAUS MOLLER, VP OF VINEYARD WIND’S OVERSEAS PARENT, COPENHAGEN OFFSHORE PARTNERS, WITHOUT THE CONTINUED WORK OF GE RENEWABLES (GER), WHICH PRODUCED AND INSTALLED – AND SUBSEQUENTLY REMOVED -- 72 DEFECTIVE TURBINE BLADES AT VINEYARD WIND (INCLUDING ONE THAT DISINTEGRATED INTO THE WATER IN JULY OF 2024), THE PROJECT MAY FALL INTO DEFAULT WITH ITS LENDERS FORECLOSING.

AT THE END OF FEBRUARY, WHEN GER SENT A “TERMINATION NOTICE” TO VINEYARD WIND (WHICH IS LOCATED AROUND 15 MILES SOUTH OF BOTH THE ISLANDS OF NANTUCKET AND MARTHA’S VINEYARD, MASS.), BASED ON PAST DUE PAYMENTS OF $360 MILLION, MOLLER’S COMPANY WASTED LITTLE TIME IN GOING TO COURT FOR A “TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER” TO KEEP GER ON THE JOB. AND THIS WAS DESPITE VINEYARD WIND DESCRIBING THE 72 REPLACED TURBINE BLADES AS BEING “SO POORLY MADE THAT THEY WERE BEYOND REPAIR.”

VINEYARD WIND ARGUES THAT GER OWES THEM $853 MILLION DUE TO THE BLADE DISASTER, AND IF THEY STOPPED WORKING, THE PROJECT WOULD BE DONE FOR. AND SO ON APRIL 17, A SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE AGREED, GIVING VINEYARD WIND WHAT IT WAS ASKING FOR. GE RENEWABLES, DESPITE ITS “POOR PERFORMANCE,” MUST REMAIN ON THE JOB.

UNLIKE OTHER CONTRACT DISPUTES, HOWEVER, THIS ONE INVOLVES A WHOLE LOT MORE THAN THE BICKERING OF A BUNCH OF MAJOR CORPORATIONS. THAT’S BECAUSE THE “POORLY MADE” 70-TON TURBINE BLADE FROM GE’S CANADIAN PLANT, WHICH DISINTEGRATED AT THE HEIGHT OF THE 2024 SUMMER SEASON, CAUSED PIECES OF FIBERGLASS, FOAM, AND PLASTIC TO WASH ASHORE, CLOSING SOME MASSACHUSETTS BEACHES AND LEAVING BEHIND AN UNKNOWN TOXIC LEGACY.

BUT WHAT THIS LITIGATION, AND MOLLER’S DRAMATIC TESTIMONY, SHOULD BRING TO LIGHT IS THE ABSENCE OF ANY KNOWN FINANCIAL SECURITY FOR REMOVAL OF THIS AND OTHER PROJECTS, MAKING A “WIND FARM GRAVEYARD” AT SOME POINT A VERY REAL POSSIBILITY.

DEFICIENT PERFORMANCE AND EVEN WORSE TURBINE BLADES

VINEYARD WIND DOESN’T GIVE GE RENEWABLES MUCH OF A JOB PERFORMANCE REVIEW. IF IT WERE A GOOGLE RATING, IT WOULD BE “NO STARS, CANNOT RECOMMEND.”

AS STATED IN ITS COMPLAINT AGAINST THE COMPANY, “THE BONDING IN SOME OF THE ORIGINAL BLADES WAS SO DEFICIENT THAT THE BLADES HAD TO BE REPAIRED IN PLACE BEFORE THEY COULD BE REMOVED SO THAT THEY DID NOT COLLAPSE INTO THE WATER.”

THE COMPLAINT GOES ON TO SAY THAT GER PERSONNEL “NEGLIGENTLY” PERFORMED THEIR WORK, AND THIS “DEFICIENT PERFORMANCE” HAS “BEEN POOR AND BEHIND SCHEDULE AT EVERY PHASE” WITH THE “INCREDIBLY POOR PERFORMANCE OF GER” CAUSING “CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE.”

THE CATASTROPHE VINEYARD WIND IS REFERRING TO OCCURRED BACK IN JULY 2024, WHEN A 351-FOOT-LONG VINEYARD WIND BLADE FELL APART AND SENT ITS CARGO-SHIP LOAD OF TOXIC JUNK INTO THE OCEAN OFF SOUTHEASTERN NEW ENGLAND, CAUSING SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF DEBRIS TO WASH UP ON BEACHES IN MASSACHUSETTS AND RHODE ISLAND.

AT THAT TIME, HOWEVER, THE PUBLIC WAS NOT TOLD THAT AN INCOMPETENT COMPANY WAS INSTALLING “POORLY MADE” AND “DEFICIENT” WIND TURBINE BLADES, BUT THAT SUCH EVENTS ARE “HIGHLY UNUSUAL AND RARE,” SOMETHING PROVEN TO BE FAR AND AWAY FROM THE TRUTH (MORE ON THAT IN A MINUTE).

BUT AS FAR AS PUTTING UP THE COLLATERAL AS REQUIRED BY THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS TO ENSURE THE AVAILABILITY OF HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS REQUIRED TO EITHER REMOVE THE PROJECT FROM THE WATER AT THE END OF ITS WORKING LIFE OR SHOULD IT FAIL FOR ANY REASON PREMATURELY, THAT IS SOMETHING PUT ASIDE FOR LATER. AS IN A DECADE-AND-A-HALF LATER.

AS REQUESTED BY VINEYARD WIND WAY BACK IN 2017, AND AGAIN IN 2021, THE COMPANY WOULD RATHER “DEFER” ITS “FINANCIAL ASSURANCE” FOR DECOMMISSIONING UNTIL YEAR 15 OF ITS OPERATIONS.

IN JUNE OF 2021, THE BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT (BOEM) APPROVED THAT REQUEST, SAYING AT THE TIME THAT VINEYARD WIND SHOWED SEVERAL “RISK-REDUCTION FACTORS” THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR SUCH A DEFERMENT, AN IMPORTANT ONE BEING “THE USE OF PROVEN WIND TURBINE TECHNOLOGY.”

WHAT THAT EVEN MEANS ISN’T CLEAR, BUT ONE THING IS: VINEYARD WIND APPARENTLY KNEW THAT GE RENEWABLES WAS DOING A PISS-POOR JOB BY INSTALLING “DEFICIENT” BLADES THAT – FINGERS CROSSED – WOULD KEEP ON SPINNING, ALL WHILE TRYING TO REASSURE THE PUBLIC THAT ITS BLADE FAILURE WAS AN OUT-OF-THE-ORDINARY OCCURRENCE.

BOEM CONCLUDED IN A 2021 LETTER TO THE COMPANY THAT “THESE RISK-REDUCTION FACTORS, ALONG WITH OUR REVIEW OF THE PROJECT’S PROJECTED REVENUE AND COSTS, DEMONSTRATE THAT DEFERRING THE DECOMMISSIONING FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENT UNTIL 15 YEARS AFTER CONSTRUCTION DOES NOT EXPOSE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO UNDUE RISK.”

CONSIDERING HOW VINEYARD WIND’S CEO DESCRIBES ITS CURRENT PREDICAMENT AND DEPENDENCE ON GER, PERHAPS IT’S THE ENVIRONMENT, MARINE LIFE, AND COASTAL RESIDENTS AND VISITORS WHO ARE AT SUCH “UNDUE RISK.”

OTHER OFFSHORE WIND PROJECTS, INCLUDING REVOLUTION WIND, ATLANTIC SHORES, AND SOUTH FORK WIND, HAVE ALSO BEEN GIFTED WITH THIS SPECIAL MONEY-SAVING “DEPARTURE” FROM REGULATIONS.

“WILD-WEST CONDITIONS”

IT’S A POORLY KEPT INDUSTRY SECRET THAT POWER GENERATED BY WIND, BOTH ON AND OFFSHORE, HAS A ROBUST HISTORY OF BLADE FAILURE.

STATISTICALLY SPEAKING, THE COMPANY GCUBE, WHOSE WEB PAGE DESCRIBES THEM AS “RENEWABLE ENERGY INSURANCE EXPERTS,” HASN’T PROVIDED ANY DATA ON TURBINE BLADE FAILURES SINCE 2014, MAKING ASSORTED NEWS REPORTS THE ONLY WAY TO FIND OUT ABOUT THEM. AT THAT TIME, HOWEVER, GCUBE REPORTED 700,000 BLADES IN OPERATION WITH A FAILURE RATE OF 3,800 INCIDENTS A YEAR.

WHERE UPDATED DATA MAY BE HIDING WAS A QUESTION ASKED IN A 2023 REPORT PUT OUT BY THE TURBINE GROUP, A RESEARCH COLLECTIVE, TITLED THE TOXIC WINGS. THE SECRECY INVOLVED IS DUE IN PART, THE AUTHORS SAID, TO “THE FACT THAT THE WIND TURBINE INDUSTRY GUARANTEES CONFIDENTIALITY TO ITS BUYERS AND USERS.

“WE KNOW OF NO OTHER INDUSTRY THAT (HAS) BEEN ALLOWED SUCH ‘WILD WEST’ CONDITIONS EVER,” THE REPORT NOTED, DESCRIBING WIND ENERGY AS AN “UNPROVEN TECHNOLOGY…WITHOUT A SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR THE OVERALL SCOPE OF CONSEQUENCES” TO OUR HEALTH, SAFETY, AND THE ENVIRONMENT.

FOR EXAMPLE, AS REPORTED BY THE OREGONIAN, IN FEBRUARY OF 2022 AT PORTLAND’S BIGLOW CANYON ONSHORE WIND FARM, ONE OF THE TURBINE’S BLADES WAS DESCRIBED AS HAVING “LAUNCHED INTO THE NIGHT.

“NO ONE SAW IT. NO ONE HEARD IT. BUT IT WAS EVIDENTLY A VIOLENT AFFAIR.

“THE SKINNY BLADE, AS TALL AS AN 11-STORY BUILDING AND WEIGHING MORE THAN FOUR TOYOTA CAMRYS, SOARED THE FULL LENGTH OF A FOOTBALL FIELD. IT PLOWED A FURROW FOUR FEET DEEP IN THE WHEAT STUBBLE WHERE IT EVENTUALLY LANDED.”

THAT SAME YEAR AT SEA, ORSTED REQUESTED “NO SAIL ZONES” THAT SPANNED THREE COUNTRIES WHEN BOTH THE ROTOR AND BLADES WERE DISPATCHED FROM ITS TURBINE AT ITS ANHOLT WIND AREA IN DENMARK.

BLADES HAVE FALLEN, BEEN “TORN OFF” AND SIMPLY SOARED THROUGH THE AIR ALL OVER THE WORLD, INCLUDING “CRASHING DOWN” IN THE TOWN OF NORTH FINDLAY, OHIO, IN 2024.

AND JUST RECENTLY, ON APRIL 22, THE DRUMLINS PARK ONSHORE WIND PROJECT IN IRELAND WAS “TEMPORARILY SHUT DOWN ‘AS A PRECAUTION’” WHEN A GIANT BLADE, CALLED THE “LARGEST ONSHORE TURBINE MODEL,” BECAME MYSTERIOUSLY DISABLED, WITH MOST OF THE BLADE HANGING DOWN FROM A BROKEN SECTION.

THAT BLADE WAS MANUFACTURED BY THE SAME COMPANY ACCUSED OF “INCREDIBLY POOR PERFORMANCE” BY VINEYARD WIND, GE RENEWABLES (SINCE RENAMED GE VERNOVA).

TRUTH BE TOLD, THE GENERAL PUBLIC HAS NO REAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FINANCIAL SOLVENCY OF THESE (MOSTLY FOREIGN) WIND COMPANIES THAT ARE FILLING OUR MARITIME ENVIRONMENT WITH MANY HUNDREDS OF MASSIVE TURBINES AND MILES UPON MILES OF TRENCHED UNDERWATER CABLES.

AND IF WE GO BY WHAT VINEYARD WIND HEAD MOLLER TESTIFIES TO, THEY CAN BE UPENDED AT ANY TIME, POTENTIALLY LEAVING OUR SEASCAPE LITTERED WITH WIND JUNK AND NO PLAN OR DOLLARS TO CLEAN UP THE MESS.

Views: 8

Comment

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

Comment by Willem Post 1 hour ago

BREAKING!!! 46 IPCC Scientists REBEL:
The Climate Narrative is Crumbling from Within! 
Forty-six scientists tied to the IPCC have stepped away or spoken out because their evidence-based views clashed with the official alarmist script.
They weren’t “listened to.”
Their data didn’t fit the doom-and-gloom story pushed in the Summaries for Policymakers.
Don’t trust me, read their own words here!  
Dr. Robert Balling: “The IPCC notes that ‘No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.’ This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.”
Dr. Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”
Dr. John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”
Dr. Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”
Dr. Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”
Dr. Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”
Dr. Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.”
Dr. Willem de Lange: “In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 ‘scientists’ who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”
Dr. Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the long-standing claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”
Dr. Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”
Dr. Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”
Dr. John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”
Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation.
The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.” Yet the grift rolls on.
New grads, indoctrinated in universities, keep repackaging the same scares for the next generation. “Consensus!” “The Science says!”
Endless control through manufactured ignorance.
Meanwhile, nature doesn’t care about the narrative.
Natural forcings rule.
The Sun is cooling.
Jet stream gone meridional.
Cosmic rays surging, seeding clouds. Result?
Wild swings, then global cooling.
The emperor has no clothes, and the scientists who know it are finally speaking up.  
Original work from The Dragons Breathe Substack: https://open.substack.com/pub/thedragonsbreath/p/the-ipcc-falls-apart?r=3y7ad4&utm_medium=ios
Image



Comment by Willem Post 1 hour ago

Every wind turbine and solar panel on earth today is expected to be decommissioned and replaced long before Net Zero in 2050.
We aren't just building a new energy grid, we're initiating the world’s largest, most resource-intensive replacement cycle.
The staggering cost of these recurring cycles is expected to add trillions to an already massive price tag.
McKinsey Global estimates the transition requires $9.2 trillion per year, totaling $275 trillion by 2050.
However, these figures are only the baseline - they don't account for the new price ceiling driven by the physical failure and required replacement of first-generation infrastructure.
Most of today’s 225,000 wind turbines (over 1.2 TW capacity) will exceed their 20–30 year lifespans by 2050.
This necessitates waves of decommissioning or 'repowering' on a scale never seen before.
With wingspans rivaling an Airbus A380 or Boeing 747, these massive composite structures are fueling blade graveyards that present a disposal challenge unmatched in human history.
Projections suggest 43 million tonnes of blade waste and 60–80 million tonnes of solar PV waste by 2050.
A global rebuild of this scale must compete for finite resources.
China currently refines 90% of the global rare earth supply, creating a precarious geopolitical dependency for the permanent magnet technology required for modern turbines.
* Rare earths: Neodymium and praseodymium for magnets; dysprosium and terbium for heat resistance. * Essential metals: Massive quantities of copper for wiring, tungsten for components, and tin for soldering.
* Physical scale: Larger direct-drive turbines require 0.5–2 tonnes of rare-earth magnets per MW, supported by vast quantities of steel and concrete.
A 'second transition' is destined to become a third, and a fourth—replacing the entire global inventory every few decades.
This demands a WWII-scale 'D-Day' mobilization of capital and labor, occurring just as subsidies fade and private investment thins due to uneven returns.
Furthermore, the 'diesel paradox' remains: heavy mining equipment is still powered by the very same fossil fuels the transition seeks to eliminate.
The math suggests a looming collision between physical reality and political agendas.
Image: The Casper Regional Landfill in Wyoming has become a global focal point for 'clean energy waste'.
Image
Comment by Willem Post 2 hours ago

Germany built one of the largest wind and solar fleets on Earth.

It dismantled its nuclear power stations and retired its coal, with the promise that green energy would power its future.

The country spent billions transitioning.

Then winter arrived, and "Dunkelflaute" hit - the dark windless dead zone.

Wind and solar fell to barely 5% of demand.

The grid staggered.

Germany was forced to fire up old coal plants it said had closed forever, and import expensive nuclear  at high wholesale prices from France.

This is the physics politicians fail to mention, and a point many people still fail to grasp.

When the wind dies and the sun sets, renewables disappear.

And the only way the grid survives, the only reason countless millions don't freeze to death, is thanks to oil, coal, nuclear, large reservoir hydro, and gas.

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

by Willem Post

. 

Utility-scale, battery system pricing usually not made public, but for this system it was.

Neoen, in western Australia, turned on its 219 MW/ 877 MWh Tesla Megapack battery, the largest in western Australia.

Ultimately, 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 cost much more than $500/kWh

.

Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing
Assume 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh; turnkey cost $104.5 million; 104,500,000/181,900 = $574/kWh,  per Example 2
Amortize bank loan, 50% of $104.5 million, at 6.5%/y for 15 years, $5.484 million/y
Pay Owner return, 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, 15 years at 10%; 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, etc.) is 92.3c/kWh

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

Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) loss factor 1 / (0.9*0.9), HV grid-to-HV grid, 4) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing, 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%, see top URL, 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. 

That is on top of the cost/kWh of the electricity taken from the HV grid to charge the batteries

Up to 40% could occur by absorbing midday solar peaks and discharging during late-afternoon/early-evening, in sunny California and other such states. The more solar systems, the greater the midday peaks.

See top 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, plus they added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia

Regarding any project, Banks and Owners have to be paid, no matter what. I amortized the Bank loan and Owner’s investment

Divide total payments over 15 years by the 15-y throughput to get c/kWh, as shown.

Loss factor = 1 / (0.9 *0.9), 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., draw about 50 units from HV grid to deliver about 40 units to HV grid. That gets worse with aging.

A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been misled by self-serving folks, that “battery Nirvana is just around the corner”.

.

NOTE: EV battery packs cost about $135/kWh, before it is installed in the car. Such packs are good for 6 to 8 years, used about 2 h/d, at an average speed of 30 mph. Utility battery systems are used 24/7/365 for 15 years

.

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-systems-foisted-onto-a-brainwashed-public-1

By Willem Post

.

People are brainwashed to love wind and solar. They do not know by how much they screw themselves by voting for the woke folks who push them onto everyone. Their ignorance is exploited by the woke folks
.

Offshore wind, owned/controlled by European governments and companies, would have serious disadvantages for the US regarding environmental impact, national security, economic competitiveness, and sovereignty 

.
Western countries cajoling Third World countries into Wind/Solar and loaning them high-interest money to do so, will forever re-establish a neo-colonial-style bondage on those recently free countries.

 

What is generally not known, the more weather-dependent W/S systems, the less efficient the traditional generators, as they inefficiently (more CO2/kWh) counteract the increasingly larger ups and downs of W/S output. See URL

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed

.

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.

.

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 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 essential for: 1) increased green flora to increase fauna all over the world, and 2) increased crop yields to better feed 8 billion people.

.
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. Extremely biased CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, NBC ABC, CBS come to mind.

.

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

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

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

3) Loan interest deduction

.

Utilities forced to pay at least:

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

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

10 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 far-flung 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 means 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 means 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 no curtailment, 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

Total ADDER 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 = 11 c/kWh

.

Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 30 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 41 c/kWh, no subsidies

Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 15 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 26 c/kWh, 50% subsidies

The 11 c/kWh is for various measures required by wind. Power plant-to-landfill cost basis.

This compares with 7 c/kWh + 3 c/kWh = 10 c/kWh from existing gas, coal, nuclear, large reservoir hydro plants.

Some of these values increase, due to inflation, and exponentially increase as more W/S systems are added to the grid.
.

The economic/financial insanity and environmental damage is off the charts.

Europe has near-zero, real-growth GDP. Its economy has been tied into knots by inane people.

U.S. Sen Angus King

THE UNTOLD STORY OF RECORD HILL WIND

The Untold Story of Record Hill Wind, continued

 

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/

© 2026   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Sign in to chat!