"Wind energy is an economically feasible, large-scale energy resource that does not rely on fossil fuel combustion"
This 2007 legislative statement from the "Wind Energy Act" is now 16 years old .
The statement rambles on declaring: "or nuclear fission, thereby displacing electrical energy provided by these other sources"
There are also several passages claiming wind energy "is an economically feasible, large-scale energy resource "
This whopper statement purports: "At present and increasingly in the future with anticipated technological advances that promise to increase the number of places in the State where grid-scale wind energy development is economically viable, and changes in the electrical power market that favor clean power sources, wind energy may be used to displace electrical power that is generated from fossil fuel combustion and thus reduce our citizens' dependence on imported oil and natural gas and improve environmental quality and state and regional energy security"
16 years and billions of "green" dollars later, natural gas-fired ( a fossil fuel) electrical generation supplying New England in 2022 amounts to 4% above the 16-year average NG generation.
Fossil fuel generation has grown! The retail price of electricity has increased! The legislative declaration of 2007 is "The Big Lie"
Not one more taxpayer or ratepayer cent for this swindle!
Views: 96
Comment
-
Comment by Willem Post on October 26, 2023 at 1:16pm
-
The wind is blowing “somewhere”
Is there a lot of wind in that “somewhere” place?
Is the somewhere place moving around?
Do we have wind turbines in all the “somewhere” places?
Turn the US into a collection of pin cushions, plus a lot of wires to connect them and to where people are consuming the electricity?US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-off...EXCERPTS
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.
The 3.5% is a minimum for all the years of hassles of designing, building, erecting, and paperwork of a project
Below contract prices, paid by Utilities to owners, are after a 50% reduction, due to US subsidies provided, per various laws, by the US Treasury to the owners. See Items 4 and 6
Oersted, Denmark, Sunrise wind, contracted at $110.37/MWh, contractor needs $139.99/MWh, a 27% increase
Equinor, Norway, Empire 1 wind, contracted at $118.38/MWh, contractor needs $159.64/MWh, a 35% increase
Equinor, Norway, Empire 2 wind, contracted at $107.50/MWh, contractor needs $177.84/MWh, a 66% increase
Equinor, Norway, Beacon Wind, contracted at $118.00/MWh, contractor needs $190.82/MWh, a 62% increase
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/liars-lies-exposed-as-...The EIA continues its phony LCOE evaluations of wind and solar, which exclude major LCOE items, regarding:
Onshore grid expansion/reinforcement and very expensive battery system storage
A fleet of quick-reacting power plants for counteracting/balancing the variable output of wind/solar
Additional power plants for making up the electricity shortfall during low wind/solar conditions
Output curtailments during high wind/solar conditions, i.e., paying owners not to produce what they could have producedWind and solar would not exist without at least 50% subsidies and above freebies
.
-
-
Dan,
Wind/solar will never scale up their output to match demand.
It does not happen in Germany, Denmark, etc., and will not happen in New EnglandIf you built too much wind/solar, you will have excess output above demand during sunny, windy days, meaning curtailments are required
If you built too little or too much wind/solar, you will have near zero output during overcast snowy days with little wind, meaning a fleet of quick-reacting power plants is required to counteract, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, any ups and downs of wind/solar output, and to fill in what is missing, to meet demand, 24/7/365
Also, electricity will never be able to provide the tens of thousands of products that are made with the chemicals derived from coal, oil and gas.
“DOING AWAY WITH FOSSIL” IS STUPID, KNOW-NOTHING PEOPLE TALKING THROUGH THEIR A HOLES
-
-
Excellent posts. Perhaps the swindle is finally being exposed to the green-washed masses? Perhaps, along with the recent climate change papers contradicting the religion of the New World Order, the ludicrous Net Zero scam will be exposed before many thousands die in the cold and dark?
https://nypost.com/2023/09/02/why-the-promise-of-green-energy-has-y...
-
-
The Net-Zero by 2050 Ship Starting to Sink
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-net-zero-by-2050-s...
Authored by Nicole James via The Epoch Times,
Offshore Wind
World: During 2021, worldwide offshore wind capacity put in operation was 17,398 MW, of which China 13,790 MW and the rest of the world 3,608 MW, of which UK 1855 MW; Vietnam 643 MW; Denmark 604 MW; Netherlands 402 MW; Taiwan 109 MW
Of the 17,398 MW, just 57.1 MW was floating capacity.
By the end of 2021, 50,623 MW was in operation, of which just 123.4 MW was floating
https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/offshore-wind-market-repo...
State of Maine: Multi-millionaire wind-subsidy chasers, with minimal regard for impacts on the environment and already-overstressed, over-taxed, over-regulated ratepayers and taxpayers, want to have about 3,000 MW of floating wind turbines by 2040, a totally unrealistic goal.
Those floaters would cost at least $7,500/kW, or at least $22.5 billion, if built in 2023 (more after 2023), and would produce electricity at about 40 c/kWh, without subsidies, about 20 c/kWh with subsidies, the price at which owners would sell to utilities.
https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-signs-bill...
European Big Wind Conglomerates in Deep Financial Trouble
The top four turbine producers in Europe have lost about $7 billion, of which $5 billion in 2022.
Oersted may write off more than $2 billion tied to three US-based projects – Ocean Wind 2 off New Jersey, Revolution Wind off Connecticut and Rhode Island, and Sunrise Wind off New York.
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 too low prices than they should have.
New York State denied the request on October 12, 2023; “a deal is a deal”, said the Commissioner
Below contract prices, paid by Utilities to owners, are after a 50% reduction, due to US subsidies provided, per various laws, by the US Treasury to the owners. See Items 4 and 6
Oersted, Denmark, Sunrise wind, contracted at $110.37/MWh, contractor needs $139.99/MWh, a 27% increase
Equinor, Norway, Empire 1 wind, contracted at $118.38/MWh, contractor needs $159.64/MWh, a 35% increase
Equinor, Norway, Empire 2 wind, contracted at $107.50/MWh, contractor needs $177.84/MWh, a 66% increase
Equinor, Norway, Beacon Wind, contracted at $118.00/MWh, contractor needs $190.82/MWh, a 62% increase
In addition, we are seeing the early stages of worldwide resistance against the constraints and costs of net zero policies
Reuters reports , renewable energy funds suffered a net outflow of $1.4 billion in the July to September 2023 quarter. This marks the largest-ever quarterly outflow, signaling a significant retreat from the sector.
LSEG Lipper data shows this to be the largest-ever quarterly outflow.
There was also a 23 percent decrease from the end of June of the total assets under management in the sector—now valued at $65.4 billion.
The S&P Global Clean Energy Index, comprised of major solar and wind power companies and other renewables-related businesses, is down 32% in 2023, most of that in the last three months, i.e., in free-fall. The peak occurred before the start of the Ukraine events. The smart money sold and others sold as well.
The industry stocks hardly growing from 2014 to 2020, overpromised starting about 2020, and submitted bids at prices, $/MWh, that were too low, while costs were increasing at greater rates than estimated, due to interest rates, inflation, energy/component/labor, a lack of specialized ships, plus supply chain constraints that cause costly delays
Plus, starting in 2020, the industry experienced O&M/MWh costs much greater than estimated, due to major design/engineering/quality control deficiencies, such as with Siemens onshore and offshore wind turbines.
Just google
As a result, the industry lost $billions each year, starting about 2020/2021, as reflected by the S&P index
However, the S&P 500 Energy Index (.SPNY), which is heavy in oil, gas and coal, has had an uptrend since before January 2021, even though the governments of the US, the UK and of some European countries have been scare-mongering fossil fuels as evil, and have been restricting exploration licenses, pipeline construction, etc.
It looks like the rest of the world, especially BRICS-11 countries, is not "playing along" with Net-Zero by 2050 follies. As a result, these countries will have faster growing economies.
Skepticism Surrounds Net-Zero Goals
It is not just investors who are exiting net zero. Politicians are also raising concerns
Australian Nationals Senator Matt Canavan said net zero has “absolutely tanked it.”
His position is that net zero is a “soundbite” and “totally insane.”
It is unachievable because people will starve, if it is enforced.
“Almost everything we grow, we make, we do in our society, relies on the use of fossil fuels,” he said.
Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace agrees.
He told Tucker Carlson, “If we totally banned fossil fuels, agricultural production would collapse in a very short period of time. People would begin to starve … and half the population would die of hunger and disease in a very short period of time.”
.
.
-
-
US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-off...
If Maine were to ask for bids for 3,000 MW of FLOATING wind turbine systems, the cost would be so high, it likely would not receive any bids.
There were NO BIDS submitted during the recent auction in the Mexican Gulf
You did not read about that in the NE papers, etc.
All is carefully covered up, to keep the people in a coma of ignorance, by design.
No sane State Government could impose such an expensive electricity burden on its citizens.
The outcome would be massive ADDITIONAL impoverishment, just as in Germany.
Floating Offshore Wind in Maine
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, lifetime = 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.
- All other items, 4 c/kWh
- Total cost 9.568 + 11.547 + 8 + 4 = 32.827 c/kWh
- Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 16.413 c/kWh
- Owner sells to utility at 16.413 c/kWh
NOTE: If li-ion battery systems were contemplated, they would add 20 to 40 c/kWh to the cost of any electricity passing through them, during their about 15-y useful service lives! See Part 1 of URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-agingNOTE: The above prices compare with the average New England wholesale price of about 5 c/kWh, during the 2009 - 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:
1) Natural gas-fueled CCGT plants, that have low-cost, low-CO2, very-low particulate/kWh
2) Uranium-fueled nuclear plants, that have low-cost, near-zero CO2, zero particulate/kWh
3) Hydro plants, that have low-cost, near-zero-CO2, zero particulate/kWh
-
-
NOTE: The Net-Zero by 2050 Ship Starting to Sink
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-net-zero-by-2050-s...
-
-
Steve,
I just checked
Renewables, tied to high voltage grid, were 7% of electricity generated in NE, as monitored by ISO-NE
4% x 7% R = 2.8% Wind
5% x 7% R = 3.5% Solar
The interesting issue is, pre-existing:
Landfill gas from mountains of wastes was 43% of 7%
Refuse/municipal waste was 36% of 7%
Wood burning was 12% of 7%
The whole NE RENEWABLES brouhaha is one gigantic load of crap foisted by fanatic, know-nothing bureaucrats and political nincompoops onto befuddled/kept ignorant New Englanders, to harvest as much federal subsidies as possible, for the benefit of multi-millionaires with secure, safe, lucrative tax shelters who do not live in Maine.
The RE Crap will be remembered as an infamous, impoverishing travesty for the ages.
US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-off...
The US government has the fantasy of wanting to build 30,000 MW of offshore by 2030, i.e., just 7 years, but several companies, building projects for Massachusetts, will be allowed to walk away from the signed PPAs, and rebid at much higher prices next year.
The UK government has the fantasy of wanting to build 36,000 MW of offshore by 2030, i.e., in just 7 years,
That means placing in operation 66,000/7 = 9,428 MW of wind turbines/y, during 2024 through 2030
The continent-based European big wind companies currently have an offshore capacity of about 4,000 MW/y
These companies prefer the U.S. market, because Biden’s "Inflation-Reduction-Act” (IRA) has higher subsidies than the UK.
The IRA has “bonus” subsidies for domestic content requirements to create US jobs and US wind infrastructures
However, the EU is urging Biden to ignore the domestic content requirements, so Europe would receive “bonus” subsidies to create European jobs to build factories, ports, cranes, specialized ships, etc., for manufacturing and erecting nacelles, towers and rotor blades, to increase EU wind turbine exports to the US, UK, and other markets in future years.
The EU has a high-level goal to shame the US, rich in energy and other resources, into the wind/solar/battery blackhole, using UN IPCC scare-mongering about global-warming
NOTE: The specialized ships and cranes, almost all owned by European companies, are very expensive and take 3 to 4 years to design and build. They are booked years in advance, with upfront cancellation fees in escrow. Their lack of availability, even at high fees, delays projects, which increases $/installed MW
NOTE: The US will have at least a $1.0 trillion trade deficit and about a $2.0 trillion federal budget deficit in 2023. The US is in no position to engage in giveaways.
NOTE:
About 7,000 MW of offshore wind bids were awarded by the UK 4th Auction, in 2022
No bids were submitted for the UK 5th Auction, in 2023; European companies protesting low UK subsidies.
No bids were submitted for a new floating offshore wind project off the coast of Scotland.The Pro-Wind bureaucrats and Media, in the poor state of Maine, should pay attention
Six Items of Interest
1) Vattenfall, Sweden, has put on hold 1,400 MW in 2023, and will re-evaluate its entire 4,200 MW zone, because its spreadsheets show a “net revenue shortage” of about 40%, meaning the prices, c/kWh, offered by the UK auctions are about 40% too low.
https://www.offshorewind.biz/2023/07/20/breaking-vattenfall-stops-d....
2) OERSTED, Denmark, sees a $2.6 billion loss on its three US East Cost offshore wind systems, mainly due to high inflation, high interest rates, supply chain constrains and disruptions, and not being awarded “bonus” subsidies of the IRA.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/denmarks-orsted-anticipates...
3) EU big wind companies want, on average, 40% more, because costs (foundations, turbines, cabling to shore, installation) increased to at least $5,500/installed kW, with bank loan rates at 6.5% in 2023, from $3,500/installed kW and 3% in 2021
4) 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 too low 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, and bank loans for risky projects are about 6.5%/y.
The 3.5% is a minimum for all the years of hassles of designing, building, erecting, and paperwork of a project
Below contract prices, paid by Utilities to owners, are after a 50% reduction, due to US subsidies provided, per various laws, by the US Treasury to the owners. See Items 4 and 6
Oersted, Denmark, Sunrise wind, contracted at $110.37/MWh, contractor needs $139.99/MWh, a 27% increase
Equinor, Norway, Empire 1 wind, contracted at $118.38/MWh, contractor needs $159.64/MWh, a 35% increase
Equinor, Norway, Empire 2 wind, contracted at $107.50/MWh, contractor needs $177.84/MWh, a 66% increase
Equinor, Norway, Beacon Wind, contracted at $118.00/MWh, contractor needs $190.82/MWh, a 62% increase
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/liars-lies-exposed-as-...
5)
- Lifetime Performance of World’s First Offshore Wind Farm
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifetime-performance-o...
- IRENA prepares glossy offshore wind reports, that 1) ignore industry cost data of offshore wind systems in the UK, 2) overestimates capacity factors, 3) underestimates decreases in output with aging, 4) underestimates O&M/MWh. IRENA is a government-controlled, offshore wind rah-rah site, that cannot be trusted
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/irena-a-european-renew...
6) Bloomberg recently reported, citing figures from Bloomberg-NEF: “The all-in, turnkey capital cost associated with a typical US offshore project, before bonus tax credits of the IRA, has increased by 57% since 2021. The increased costs of materials, energy, components, labor, and supply chain disruptions and constraints (shortage of European-owned specialized ships, etc.,) explain about 40% of that, with 60% due to increased financing costs; borrowing larger amounts/installed kW at higher interest rates
Also see my article in below comment
-
Comment by Dan McKay on October 21, 2023 at 4:59pm
-
As I read it, Steve, the demand of electricity from the grid is scaling up as it does daily at this time. Do you suppose wind and solar will scale up output to match demand?
-
-
GLOBAL WARMING IN VERMONT
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/global-warming-in-vermont
This article shows the NOAA temperature measurements in Vermont
The maximum temperatures increased by 1.5 F over 40 years, or 0.0375 F per year.
Almost all people cannot sense the difference of 77 F and 78.5 F
A similar graph shows the minimum temperatures during the months of December, January, February
The minimum temperatures increased by 4.2 F over 40 years, or 0.1 F per year.
Most older Vermonters agree, winters in Vermont have been getting warmer.
Heating demand is driven by temperature difference, which was about 65 F, indoor - 9.8 F, outdoor = 55.2 F in 1980, and became 65 F, indoor - 14 F outdoor) = 51 F in 2020
At present, it takes 7.6% less Btu for space heating a house than 40 years ago.
-
Comment by Steve Thurston on October 21, 2023 at 4:13pm
-
Right now, on a cloudy,rainy afternoon with no wind, renewables are providing 7% of demand in the ISO-NE grid. Of this 7%, wind is supplying 42% and merchant solar is providing 5%. So wind is providing 4% of the electricity in the ISO-NE grid and solar is providing 1%. No matter how many wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, or miles of transimission lines are installed, unless there is 100% backup from existing fossil fuel, nuclear, and hydro sources, when similar conditions exist New England will be in a complete blackout. We are asked to pay three times, once for subsidies to make renewables possible, again for the intermittant and uncontrollable electricity from wind and solar, and again for the reliable, dispatchable sources that must be available regardless of wind or solar.
Maine as Third World Country:
CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power
Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.
Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT
******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********
(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/
Not yet a member?
Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?
We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
-- Mahatma Gandhi
"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi
Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!
Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law
Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future
"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."
https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/
© 2024 Created by Webmaster.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!
Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine