What went wrong on December 24, 2022?

This report, meant to instill fear of power blackouts is part of a report that glorifies offshore wind as a savior during cold weather events. Do not remove your wood stoves for heat pumps.

Offshore Wind Will Add Power When New England Needs It Most - Union...

"What went wrong on December 24, 2022?"

Early morning: temperatures plummet and gas becomes scarce

The trouble began in the pre-dawn hours of the 24th, when an Arctic air mass moved into the region and temperatures fell into the teens. Across New England, millions of gas furnaces had to burn more fuel than usual to keep homes and businesses warm. This meant that less gas than usual was available for gas-fired power plants because they typically rely on “non-firm” contracts that entitle them only to the gas that is left over after heating needs are met. In other words, whenever cold weather moves into New England, gas power plants lose access to their fuel in direct proportion to the depth of the cold.

The region’s wholesale electricity markets had already factored in the forecast for extreme cold on December 24th, along with the expectation that gas would be scarce—and expensive. A day earlier, in the Day Ahead energy market run by ISO-NE, gas-fired power plants had been forced to offer their power at exceptionally high prices to cover their anticipated fuel costs. Oil-fired power plants, which are usually more expensive to run than gas plants, suddenly became the more economical option, and based on those results the ISO scheduled them to run throughout the day on Christmas Eve. 

Mid-day: aging oil plants struggle to fill in for gas plants

In a subsequent report to 11 New England Senators who had expressed concern about the Christmas Eve event, ISO-NE president and CEO Gordon van Wylie explained how the switch to oil plants exposed the grid to an unusual type of risk:

“During very cold weather when the gas pipelines into New England are constrained and natural gas prices are high, the market shifts to older, oil-fired generators, which do not run very often.… Given the age and infrequent operation of these facilities, they tend to have higher outage rates when called upon to start than most resources in the fleet.” (Emphasis added.)

The “tendency” of oil plants to struggle at startup was on full display on December 24th. As the day unfolded, an extraordinary number of them encountered mechanical and other problems that led to partial or full outages. Before noon, 1,245 megawatts of outages occurred, followed by 340 megawatts between noon and 4 pm, and another 150 megawatts out before 4:30 pm. In the meantime, the demand for power was rising, with the total demand or “peak load” of 17,510 megawatts forecasted to occur from 5 to 6 pm. 

4:30 pm: ISO-NE declares Emergency Alert

The unexpected and rapid failure of so many power plants, so close to the peak hour, left the grid operator in a difficult position. While an additional 8,000 megawatts of power was theoretically available from other plants that had been paid to be on stand-by status, none of those plants could start up on short notice, meaning that ISO-NE could not call on them to help meet the peak load that was less than an hour away. 

At 4:30 pm, the ISO determined there would be enough power to serve the peak load, but not enough to maintain the full amount of operating reserves required by grid reliability standards. 

Below, a simplified illustration of power system conditions that afternoon shows how the combination of oil plant outages and the unavailability of other plants led to a reserve shortfall, or “capacity deficiency,” for the peak hour:

https://blog.ucsusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/grid-failure_v3-500x300.png 500w, https://blog.ucsusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/grid-failure_v3-... 768w, https://blog.ucsusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/grid-failure_v3.png 1500w" sizes="(max-width: 1000px) 100vw, 1000px" />

The ISO promptly implemented “Operating Procedure #4”, which authorizes emergency actions during a capacity deficiency, and declared an “Energy Emergency Alert Level 1” to inform neighboring grid operators of the reserve shortfall. Proceeding under this emergency authority, the ISO then took several preliminary steps to restore the supply of operating reserves. Shortly thereafter, another 540 megawatts of outages occurred, and the grid operator was forced to take additional emergency actions to keep reserves from running out.

Finally, after 6 pm, the demand for electricity began to decrease slightly, and imports from Quebec (which was also in the midst of a deep-freeze) began to rebound, eliminating the reserve shortfall and allowing the ISO to cancel all emergency actions at 7 pm. 

In the end, the ISO had not needed to issue public appeals for conservation or resort to “load-shedding” (i.e. rolling blackouts), but the scarcity of gas, the outages at oil plants, and the inability of other power plants to respond quickly had all contributed to a very close call.

Views: 36


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 on May 6, 2024 at 9:49am

Retained Energy (Enthalpy) in Atmosphere

The RE in atmosphere is a net effect of the interplay of the sun, atmosphere, earth surface (land and water), and what grows on the surface and in water. 

Calculations are based on three well-known items. I assumed 16 C in 2023 and 14.8 C in 1900, as the temp of the entire atmosphere, which is overstated, but helps simplicity.

The RE ratio would not be much different, if complex analyses were used, such as how the three items vary with altitude and temp. The complex approach would subtract from both REs, leaving the ratio intact. 

This method is suitable to objectively approximate the RE role of CO2. How CO2 performs that role, the A-to-Z process, will keep many academia folks busy for many years.


NOTE: This short video shows, CO2 plays no RE role in the world’s driest places, with 423 ppm CO2 and minimal WV ppm, i.e., blaming CO2 for global warming is an unscientific hoax. 

Dry Air and Water Vapor
ha = Cpa x T = 1006 kJ/kg.C x T, where Cpa is specific heat of dry air
hg = (2501 kJ/kg, specific enthalpy of WV at 0 C) + (Cpwv x T = 1.84 kJ/kg x T), where Cpwv is specific heat of WV at constant pressure


1) Worldwide, enthalpy of moist air, at T = 16 C and H = 0.0025 kg WV/kg dry air (4028 ppm)
h = ha + H.hg = 1.006T + H(2501 + 1.84T) = 1.006 (16) + 0.0025 {2501 + 1.84 (16)} = 22.4 kJ/kg dry air
RE of dry air is 16.1 kJ/kg; RE of WV is 6.3 kJ/kg 

2) Tropics, enthalpy of moist air, at T = 27 C and H = 0.017 kg WV/kg dry air (27389 ppm)
h = 1.006 (27) + 0.017 {2501 + 1.84 (16)} = 70.5 kJ/kg dry air 
RE of dry air is 27.2 kJ/kg; RE of WV is 43.3 kJ/kg



h CO2 = Cp CO2 x K = 0.834 x (16 + 273) = 241 kJ/kg CO2, where Cp CO2 is specific heat 

Worldwide, enthalpy of CO2 = {(423 x 44)/(1000000 x 29) = 0.000642 kg CO2/kg dry air} x 241 kJ/kg CO2 @ 289 K = 0.155 kJ/kg dry air.


RE In 2023; 16 C; 423 ppm CO2

World: (16.1 + 6.3 + 0.155) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 5.148 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 1.161 x 10^5 EJ
Dry air, WV and CO2 played 71.4%, 27.9% and 0.69% RE roles. WV RE/CO2 RE = 40.6

Tropics: (27.2 + 43.3 + 0.155) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 2.049 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 1,448 x 10^5 EJ. 
Dry air, WV and CO2 played 38.5%, 61.2% and 0.22% RE roles. WV RE/CO2 RE = 279.4 

The Tropics is a major RE area, almost all of it by WV. At least 35% of the RE is transferred, 24/7/365, to areas north and south of the 37 parallels with energy deficits

RE in 1900; 14.8 C; 291 ppm CO2

World: (14.8 + 5.8 + 0.106) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 5.148 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 1.066 x 10^5 EJ
Dry air, WV and CO2 played 71.5%, 28% and 0.51% RE roles. WV RE/CO2 RE = 54.7

The 2023/1900 RE ratio was 1.089

Comment by Willem Post on May 6, 2024 at 9:46am

The elites, and IPCC, and WEF, and $politicians, and entrenched bureaucrats, and compromised academia, and lapdog Media, have combined to perpetuate and/or enrich themselves and impoverish all others, using the unscientific hoax of "CO2 causes global warming". 

The hoax is based on fossil fuels and CO2 being the villains

However, CO2 greens the earth, creates flora and fauna, including us, and increases crop yields per acre, and reduces desert areas.

We need more CO2, as proven by plant growth in greenhouses with 1000 to 1200 ppm CO2


The West’s scam includes wind/solar/batteries/hydrogen/CO2 extraction/EVs/air-source heat pumps, etc., to enrich/reward world elites, who will continue to fly their planes and sail their yachts
No command/control, choking restrictions off any kind on them!!
These elitists caused the impoverishment of the EU, especially the UK and Germany., which are overrun by millions of scruffy, poor, inexperienced, uneducated, culturally-different folks, from all over, crossing borders, or secretly flown in, unvetted, to get free work permits, free phones, and free debit cards, and free housing, and free sucking from various leftist/Democrat-run government programs.
The elites want to impose their no-fossil-fuel misery on the rules-based world to the glory of the Golden Billion in The Garden of Eden.
However, fast-growing BRISC, with 11 members and 20 applicants, including China, India, Russia, etc., are not playing along with the multi-$trillion per year hoax and scam, and the demonizing of fossil fuels.
In fact, they know it is a Western, rules-based, insanity, to impoverish them.



Important Role of CO2 for Flora and Fauna Growth
Plants require require at least 1000 to 1200 ppm of CO2, as proven in greenhouses
Many plants have become extinct, along with the fauna they supported, due to a lack of CO2
As a result, many areas of the world became arid and deserts.
The current CO2 needs to at least double or triple
Earth temperature increased about 1.2 C since 1900, which is due to many causes, such as fossil CO2, flora CO2, and permafrost methane which converts to CO2.
CO2 emissions of fossil fuels are a blessing.
CO2 has increased from about 296 ppm in 1900 to 423 ppm at end 2023. It:
1) Increased world greening by at least 10 to 15%, as measured by satellites since 1979.
2) Increased world fauna
3) Increased crop yields per acre.
4) Reduced desert areas

Benefits of CO2
Oceans Absorb CO2
CO2 molecules continuously move from the air into sea water, in accordance with Henry’s Law
The sea water contains 3% salt, NaCl, by weight.
The CO2 continuously combines with salt to form numerous Ca, Cl, O2 and H2 compounds that support ocean flora and fauna.
As a result, the oceans are the major sink of CO2 from human and natural sources in the TS.
At least 80% of new CO2 in the TS, human and natural, is added to the oceans 

Comment by Willem Post on April 29, 2024 at 10:33am




World Offshore Wind Capacity Placed on Operation in 2021

During 2021, worldwide offshore wind capacity placed in operation was 17,398 MW, of which China 13,790 MW, and the rest of the world 3,608 MW, of which UK 1,855 MW; Vietnam 643 MW; Denmark 604 MW; Netherlands 402 MW; Taiwan 109 MW

Of the 17,398 MW, just 57.1 MW was floating, about 1/3%

At end of 2021, 50,623 MW was in operation, of which just 123.4 MW was floating, about 1/4%



Floating Offshore Wind Systems in the Impoverished State of Maine


Despite the meager floating offshore MW in the world, pro-wind politicians, bureaucrats, etc., aided and abetted by the lapdog Main Media and "academia/think tanks", in the impoverished State of Maine, continue to fantasize about building 3,000 MW of 850-ft-tall floating offshore wind turbines by 2040!!


Maine government bureaucrats, etc., in a world of their own climate-fighting fantasies, want to have about 3,000 MW of floating wind turbines by 2040; a most expensive, totally unrealistic goal, that would further impoverish the already-poor State of Maine for many decades.


Those bureaucrats, etc., would help fatten the lucrative, 20-y, tax-shelters of mostly out-of-state, multi-millionaire, wind-subsidy chasers, who likely have minimal regard for:


1) Impacts on the environment and the fishing and tourist industries of Maine, and

2) Already-overstressed, over-taxed, over-regulated Maine ratepayers and taxpayers, who are trying to make ends meet in a near-zero, real-growth economy.


Those fishery-destroying, 850-ft-tall floaters, with 24/7/365 strobe lights, visible 30 miles from any shore, would cost at least $7,500/ installed kW, or at least $22.5 billion, if built in 2023 (more after 2023)


Almost the entire supply of the Maine projects would be designed and made in Europe, then transported across the Atlantic Ocean, in European specialized ships, then unloaded at a new, $500-million Maine storage/pre-assembly/staging/barge-loading area, then barged to European specialized erection ships for erection of the floating turbines. The financing will be mostly by European pension funds paying pensions to retirees.


About 300 Maine people would have jobs during the erection phase

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

About 100 Maine people would have long-term O&M jobs, using European spare parts, during the 20-y electricity production phase.



The Maine woke bureaucrats are falling over each other to prove their “greenness”, offering $millions of this and that for free, but all their primping and preening efforts has resulted in no floating offshore bids from European companies


The Maine people have much greater burdens to look forward to for the next 20 years, courtesy of the Governor Mills incompetent, woke bureaucracy that has infested the state government 


The Maine people need to finally wake up, and put an end to the climate scare-mongering, which aims to subjugate and further impoverish them, by voting the entire Democrat woke cabal out and replace it with rational Republicans in 2024

The present course leads to financial disaster for the impoverished State of Maine and its people.

The purposely-kept-ignorant Maine people do not deserve such maltreatment


Electricity Cost: Assume a $750 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation at $7,500/kW.

Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y

Amortize bank loan for $525 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 years, 13.396 c/kWh.

Owner return on $225 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 years, 7.431 c/kWh

Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.

Supply chain, special ships, and ocean transport, 3 c/kWh

All other items, 4 c/kWh 

Total cost 13.396 + 7.431 + 8 + 3 + 4 = 35.827 c/kWh

Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 17.913 c/kWh

Owner sells to utility at 17.913 c/kWh


NOTE: The above prices compare with the average New England wholesale price of about 5 c/kWh, during the 2009 - 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:


Gas-fueled CCGT plants, with low-cost, low-CO2, very-low particulate/kWh

Nuclear plants, with low-cost, near-zero CO2, zero particulate/kWh

Hydro plants, with low-cost, near-zero-CO2, zero particulate/kWh

Cabling to Shore Plus $Billions for Grid Expansion on Shore: A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet. 
The cables would need some type of flexible support 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.


Floating Offshore a Major Financial Burden on Maine People: Rich Norwegian people can afford to dabble in such expensive demonstration follies (See Appendix 2), but the over-taxed, over-regulated, impoverished Maine people would buckle under such a heavy burden, while trying to make ends meet in the near-zero, real-growth Maine economy. Maine folks need lower energy bills, not higher energy bills.

Floating Offshore Wind in Norway

Equinor, a Norwegian company, put in operation, 11 Hywind, floating offshore wind turbines, each 8 MW, for a total of 88 MW, in the North Sea. The wind turbines are supplied by Siemens, a German company

Production will be about 88 x 8766 x 0.5, claimed lifetime capacity factor = 385,704 MWh/y, which is about 35% of the electricity used by 2 nearby Norwegian oil rigs, which cost at least $1.0 billion each.

On an annual basis, the existing diesel and gas-turbine generators on the rigs, designed to provide 100% of the rigs electricity requirements, 24/7/365, will provide only 65%, i.e., the wind turbines have 100% back up.

The generators will counteract the up/down output of the wind turbines, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365

The generators will provide almost all the electricity during low-wind periods, and 100% during high-wind periods, when rotors are feathered and locked.

The capital cost of the entire project was about 8 billion Norwegian Kroner, or about $730 million, as of August 2023, when all 11 units were placed in operation, or $730 million/88 MW = $8,300/kW. See URL

That cost was much higher than the estimated 5 billion NOK in 2019, i.e., 60% higher

The project is located about 70 miles from Norway, which means minimal transport costs of the entire supply to the erection sites

The project produces electricity at about 42 c/kWh, no subsidies, at about 21 c/kWh, with 50% subsidies 

In Norway, all work associated with oil rigs is very expensive.

Three shifts of workers are on the rigs for 6 weeks, work 60 h/week, and get 6 weeks off with pay, and are paid well over $150,000/y, plus benefits.

If Norwegian units were used in Maine, the production costs would be even higher in Maine, because of the additional cost of transport of almost the entire supply, including specialized ships and cranes, across the Atlantic Ocean, plus

A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet. 

The cables would need some type of flexible support system
The cables would be combined into several cables to run horizontally to shore, for at least 25 to 30 miles, to several onshore substations, to the New England high voltage grid.





Comment by Willem Post on April 29, 2024 at 10:29am




New York State had signed contracts with EU big wind companies for four offshore wind projects

Sometime later, the companies were trying to coerce an additional $25.35 billion (per Wind Watch) from New York ratepayers and taxpayers over at least 20 years, because they had bid at lower prices than they should have.

New York State denied the request on October 12, 2023; “a deal is a deal”, said the Commissioner 


Owners want a return on investment of at least 10%/y, if bank loans for risky projects are 6.5%/y, and project cost inflation and uncertainties are high 

The about 3.5% is a minimum for all the years of hassles of designing, building, erecting, and paperwork of a project

The project prices, with no subsidies, would be about two times the agreed contract price, paid by Utilities to owners. That means, the effect of subsidies reduced the contract price by 50%.

All contractors had bid too low. When they realized there would be huge losses, they asked for higher contract prices.

It looks like the contract prices will need to be at least $150/MWh, for contractors to make money.

Those contract prices would be at least 60% higher than in 2021

Oersted, Denmark, Sunrise wind, contract price $110.37/MWh, contractor needs $139.99/MWh, a 27% increase

Equinor, Norway, Empire 1 wind, contract price $118.38/MWh, contractor needs $159.64/MWh, a 35% increase

Equinor, Norway, Empire 2 wind, contract price $107.50/MWh, contractor needs $177.84/MWh, a 66% increase

Equinor, Norway, Beacon Wind, contract price $118.00/MWh, contractor needs $190.82/MWh, a 62% increase


Four "On-Hold" NY Projects

Empire Wind 2, 1260 MW, near Long- Island; 1404 MW, Attentive Energy One; 1314 MW, "Community" Offshore Wind; 1414 MW, Excelsior Wind; a capital cost at least 4,000 MW x $5,500,000/MW = $22 BILLION 


Offshore Cancellations in Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island

BP (BP.L) and Oersted (ORSTED.CO) have announced hefty writedowns , and US offshore project cancellations, in recent days, in the face of high inflation, high interest rates, and lack of the timely availability of specialized ships.

In Rhode Island, in March 2023, a procurement for offshore wind drew only one bidder – an 884 MW proposal from Eversource and Ørsted.

In August, Ørsted CEO Mads Nipper warned the company could walk away from unprofitable projects in the US amid the turbulence in pricing and supply chain issues.

Avangrid, a Spanish company, in September 2022, walked away from its 804 MW Park City wind project, planned for off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard. It was no longer feasible at the 2019 contract price agreed with Connecticut.

At the time, the company said, inflation, higher interest rates and supply chain issues made the agreed price of $79.83 per MWh unprofitable.

In July 2023, Avangrid also walked away from its 1200 MW Commonwealth Wind project for Massachusetts.

The two projects became so unprofitable, it made better financial sense for Avangrid to pay $48, Massachusetts + $16, Connecticut = $64 million in walk-away penalties, rather than face much higher costs for building the project, with no prospect of a profit. 

SHELL: LONDON, Nov 2 (Reuters) - Shell's CFO said on Thursday, the firm had abandoned a power purchase agreement (PPA), at contract price of $76.73/MWh, for the planned 2400 MW South Coast offshore wind project, off the coast of Massachusetts, agreeing to pay a $60 million walk-away penalty, rather than face much higher costs for building the project, with no prospect of a profit. 


Comment by Willem Post on April 29, 2024 at 10:02am

You all should notice, ISO-NE did not tell wind and solar to increase their outputs, MW, because those outputs depend on the WEATHER

Building more w/s systems will not solve the shortfall, because with little wind and little solar, w/s would have little output, no matter how much you jump up and down

These events become more frequent, as more w/s systems are built and traditional plants are mothballed, as in Germany, the UK and Denmark, all with the highest household electric rates.

Comment by Dan McKay on April 29, 2024 at 8:58am

Power Plant Retirements

With the transition to a power system made up of more resources with limited energy inventories (natural gas, wind, solar, battery storage), the region is losing traditional generators that have substantial on-site fuels (nuclear, oil, or coal) and can sustain extended operations during cold weather conditions for days and even weeks on end. More than 5,200 MW of oil, coal, and nuclear power plants will have retired from 2013 to 2022, and another 5,000 MW of coal- and oil-fired generation could be retiring in coming years.

Comment by Dan McKay on April 29, 2024 at 8:53am

Well said, Willem


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


(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."


© 2024   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service