Comment

Comment by Willem Post on June 9, 2021 at 10:29am

Here is an excerpt of an article regarding FLOATING wind turbines, such as off the coast of Maine, and off the cost of California.

The capital cost would be off-the charts expensive, $/MW, plus the anchoring cables would greatly REDUCE commercial fishing in these areas.

Prices paid by UTILITIES to the owners of these plants would be at least 25 c/kWh, AFTER THE BENEFIT OF ALL SUBSIDIES.

That compares with an average wholesale price of about 5 c/kWh for nuclear, fossil and hydro.

Pro RE folks always point to the “price paid to owner” as the cost of wind and solar, purposely ignoring the other cost categories.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol...

The all-in cost of wind and solar, c/kWh, includes:

1) Above-market-price paid to owners 
2) Subsidies paid to owners
3) Owner return on invested capital
4) Grid extension/augmentation (not paid by owners)
5) Grid support services (not paid by owners) 
6) Future battery systems (not paid by owners)

Of course, the Biden “RE/GW visionaries” do not have the slightest inkling of those costs, and if some of them do, whey would NEVER mention it.

Excerpt:

DEEP-WATER FLOATING OFFSHORE WIND TURBINES IN MAINE
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/deep-water-floating-off...

The Norwegians have about 60 years of experience building and servicing oil/gas rigs and laying undersea electric cables, gas lines and oil lines all over the world.
 
They have invested billions of dollars in specialized deep-water, Norwegian harbors and facilities for assembly of oil/gas rigs and invested in specialized sea-going heavy lifters, and specialized sea-going tugboats to tow the oil/gas rigs from Norwegian building sites to oil/gas production sites. The heavy lifters and other ships perform services all over the world.
 
Norway companies want to expand their business by building and servicing and providing spare parts for floating wind turbines for deep-water conditions all over the world

NOTE: Norwegians advocating expensive floating wind turbines that depend on the randomness of wind and produce high-cost, variable, intermittent electricity for other people, such as Jane and Joe Worker/Ratepayer, is highly hypocritical, because the Norwegians get 98% of their electricity from their own hydro plants, which produce low-cost, steady electricity (not variable, not intermittent). The Danes advocating wind turbines and boasting about their high percent of wind on their grid is similarly hypocritical, because the Danes have been increasingly using the storage reservoirs of Norway’s hydro plants for decades.
 
First Experimental Floating Wind Turbine in Norway
 
Equinor (formerly Statoil, a Norwegian government controlled company) launched the world’s first operational deep-water, floating large-capacity wind turbine in 2009. The turbine trade name is “Hywind”.
 
The wind turbine consists of a 120 m (390 ft) tall tower, above the sea water level, and a 60 m (195 ft) submerged extension below the sea water level, with a heavy weight at the bottom to keep the wind turbine steady and upright, even with very high waves and strong wind conditions. The design was tested and perfected under storm and wind conditions simulated in a laboratory.

The 2.3 MW wind turbine is mounted on top of the tower. It was fully assembled in a deep-water harbor near Stavanger, Norway.
 
It was towed to a site 10 km (6.2 mi) offshore into the Amoy Fjord in 220 m (720 ft) deep water, near Stavanger, Norway, on 9 June 2009, for a two-year test run, which turned out to be successful.
 
First Commercial Floating Wind Turbine Plant in Scotland
 
Hywind Scotland project is the world’s first commercial wind turbine plant using floating wind turbines.
 
It is located 29 km (EIGHTEEN MILES) off Peterhead, Scotland to minimize visual impacts from shore.
It has five Hywind floating turbines with a total capacity of 30 MW.
It is operated by Hywind (Scotland) Limited, a joint venture of Equinor, Norway (75%) and Masdar, Kuwait (25%).
 
In 2015, Equinor received permission to install 5 Hywind turbines in Scotland.  
 
Manufacturing started in 2016 in Spain (wind turbine, rotor), Norway (tower, underwater base, assembly), and Scotland (various parts)
The turnkey capital cost was $263 million for five 6 MW turbines, or $8,767/kW.
They were designed to float on the surface, with about 180 m (600 ft) above the sea water level and 80 m (265 ft) submerged below the seawater level. 
Total steel weight is about 2300 metric ton, total ballasted weight is about 20,000 metric ton.
Heavy weights in the bottom of the submerged parts serve to keep them steady and upright.
 
The turbines were assembled at Stord in Norway in the summer of 2017, using the specialized Saipem 7000 floating crane, and then towed to the north of Scotland by sea-going tugboats.
Make sure to see the videos showing the crane assembling the entire wind turbine.
Nothing like that exists in Maine, or in the rest of New England.
That means offshore wind turbine assembly and servicing would largely be performed by foreign companies, which already have built the infrastructures and other facilities during the past 25 years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUlfvXaISvc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmkA6hbJ_j8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQVU7UaMuck

The huge, sea-going, specialized, crane (14,000-metric ton lifting capacity) is required for partial assembly on land and final assembly in an area close to shore with a very deep harbor, before towing, fully assembled, to the site.
 
The finished turbines were towed to Peterhead, Scotland.  
Three  cup anchors hold each turbine in place.
About 2400 meter of chain is required, weighing 400 metric ton, for each turbine.
The Hywind Scotland project was commissioned in October 2017.
 
Hywind Wind Turbines for Demonstration Purposes in Maine
 
Hannah Pingree and other Maine’s wind bureaucrats in state government are engaging in mindless prattle, eager to do the bidding of various multi-millionaires and foreign companies that may be providing some wining/dining boondoggle trips to “view the Hywind turbines” in Norway and Scotland.
 
The turnkey cost of those two Hywind turbines would be about $10,000 per kW, versus NE ridgeline wind at $2,000/kW, and regular offshore, south of Martha’s Vineyard, at $4,000/kW.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/iso-ne-study-of-1600-mw...
 
That would be at about $120 million for a two 6 MW Hywind wind turbines, plus whatever facilities would need to be built in Maine to support the project.
 
The turnkey capital cost of the wind turbine plant in Maine would be much higher, because Maine does not have the experience of the Norwegians and the specialized equipment and specialized ships, and other facilities. It would be very costly to build those facilities and ships in Maine, or elsewhere.

Comment by Kenneth Capron on June 8, 2021 at 12:57pm

When you talk with the EV sellers and the climate alarmists, they respond with - "someone will come up with a new battery solution by then".

I don't think this is a Duracell vs. EveryReady marketing war. These folks actually believe in perpetual charging. I like the one where they leave their EV outdoors in a lightning storm and a quick charge system.

Fake science has a solution for everything.

Comment by Willem Post on June 8, 2021 at 10:31am

EVs will not reduce CO2 nearly as much, as has been “predicted”, because they are driven about 7,000 miles per year vs at least 12,000 per year for gasoline vehicles.

That is one major flaw of almost ALL studies.

In my studies, I have assumed travel at 105,600 miles over 10 years.
VERY FEW PEOPLE WILL DRIVE AN EV FOR MORE THAN TEN YEARS.
The vehicle will be worn out, and so will be the battery.; end of story.
No one would replace a battery in a 10 year old vehicle.

These URLs show, EVs are driven an average of 7,000 miles/y, compared to 12,000 miles/y for the US LDV mix. The difference holds for:
1) all-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles,
2) single- and multiple-vehicle households, and
3) inside and outside California.

This means, as a fleet, EVs would reduce less CO2 than envisioned by RE folks’ dream scenarios.

http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/ldavis/Davis%20AEL%202019.pdf
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a35498794/ev-owners-low-mileage-s…

http://www.truenorthreports.com/tag/travels-with-charlie

Comment by Willem Post on June 8, 2021 at 10:30am

Vermont Has Much Better Options Than Expensive Battery Systems

Buildings:

A state-wide building code, which would require new buildings to be highly sealed, highly insulated so they could easily be energy-surplus buildings, or be entirely off-the -grid. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc., have had such codes for at least a decade.

Vermont should be replacing run-of-the-mill, old houses, with up-to-date, energy-surplus, off-the-grid, new houses, at a rate of at least 5,000 houses per year. There would be 150,000 such houses by 2050.

Dabbling at weatherizing, at $10,000 per house, is politically attractive, but a gross waste of money. The goal should be energy conservation and high efficiency. Their combined effect would reduce CO2 at the least cost.

Energy efficiency measures to reduce energy consumption, CO2, and energy costs, such as by:

1) Exchanging traditional light bulbs for LEDs
2) Insulating and sealing energy-hog housing and other buildings
3) Increasing the mileage of existing gasoline vehicles

Such measures would cost $50 to $200 per metric ton, much less than the $2,100/Mt of electric school buses.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-bus-systems-l…

Vehicles:

Vermont needs a gas-guzzler code to impose a fee on low-mileage vehicles.
The more below 40-mpg, the greater would be the fee.
Vehicles with greater than 40-mpg, such as the 54-mpg Toyota Prius, would be exempt.

RE folks would have everyone drive unaffordable EVs, that would not reduce much CO2 compared with EFFICIENT gasoline vehicles.

On a lifetime, A-to-Z basis, with travel at 105,600 miles over 10 years, the CO2 emissions, based on the present New England grid CO2/kWh, would be:

NISSAN Leaf S Plus, EV, compact SUV, no AWD, would emit 25.967 Mt, 246 g/mile
TOYOTA Prius L Eco, 62 mpg, compact car, no AWD, would emit 26.490 Mt, 251 g/mile
SUBARU Outback, 30 mpg, medium SUV, with AWD, would emit 43.015 Mt, 407 g/mile
VT LDV mix, 22.7 mpg, many with AWD or 4WD, would emit 56.315 Mt, 533 g/mile

The above shows,

A NISSAN Leaf, a compact vehicle, would have CO2 reduction of 30.3 Mt over 10 years (3 Mt/y), if compared with the VT LDV mix, which contains small and big vehicles.

A NISSAN Leaf would have CO2 reduction of 16.3 Mt over 10 years (1.63 Mt/y), if compared with my 30-mpg Subaru Outback, a vastly more useful vehicle

NOTE: EAN estimated 4.5 Mt/y, based on an artificial 25 g CO2/kWh electricity, instead of using the 300 g/kWh of the NE rid, calculated by ISO-NE on a rational basis. EAN neglected: 1) the CO2 of MAKING the battery, etc., and 2) LIFETIME conditions
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/poor-economics-of-elec…

Comment by Willem Post on June 8, 2021 at 10:29am

The government of Paris implemented an EV program. The EVs were ugly, little boxes.
EVs with chargers were parked at certain places
By inserting your credit card a person can drive them in town and park them later.
By inserting your credit card again, you get an email with the charge.

A lot of these EVs were damaged, and gave out after a few years, and are now parked in EV graveyards.

I have seen these ugly boxes on Paris streets, installed by the Paris government at great cost, including chargers.
A perfect example of another useless boondoggle.

Pure virtue-signaling; nothing else.

Where would Vermont store its subsidized EVs, after about 8 – 10 years? Somewhere in Burlington?

Who would want to put an expensive NEW battery in an eight year old EV?

Several studies have shown, EVs are used about 7000 miles per year.
However, EAN uses at least 12000 miles per year to artificially boost “CO2 savings”; about 50% of US EVs are used in California.

HUGE investments to implement EVs would be required, including:

Chargers everywhere,
Additional generation with HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED, EXPENSIVE, VARIABLE, INTERMITTENT wind and solar,
Additional grid build-outs
Additional grid-scale batteries everywhere,
Additional costs for balancing
Worldwide battery materials supply chains

This means, as a fleet, EVs would reduce less than 50% of the CO2 envisioned by RE folks’ dream scenarios.
RE promoters of “GOING EV” are seriously deranged, if they keep spouting EVs have no CO2 emissions.

Comment by Willem Post on June 8, 2021 at 10:29am

Here is a capital cost estimate of “moving away from fossil fuels” by the US and the World.

WORLD AND US PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND CAPITAL COST
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-total-energy-con...

World energy consumption is projected to increase to 736 quads in 2040 from 575 quads in 2015, an increase of 28%, according to the latest from the US Energy Information Administration, EIA.
See URL and click on PPT to access data, click on to page 4 of PowerPoint
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/

Most of this growth is expected to come from countries that are not in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, and especially from countries where demand is driven by strong economic growth, particularly in Asia.

Non-OECD Asia, which includes China and India, accounted for more than 60% of the world’s total increase in energy consumption from 2015 through 2040.

SUMMARY OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR THE WORLD AND US

The analysis includes two scenarios: 1) 50% RE by 2050, and 2) 100% RE by 2050.
The CAPEX values exclude a great many items related to transforming the world economy to a low-carbon mode. See next section.

50% RE by 2050

World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years
World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.
World CAPEX for RE would be $24,781 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 5.76%/y

US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 – 2019, 10 years.
US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.
US CAPEX for RE would be $7,233 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 8.81%/y

100% RE by 2050

World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years
World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.
World CAPEX for RE would be $60,987 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 10.08%/y

US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 – 2019, 10 years.
US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.
US CAPEX for RE would be $16,988 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 13.42%/y

SUMMARY OF “BIG-PICTURE” CAPEX FOR THE WORLD AND THE US

World More-Inclusive CAPEX

The above CAPEX numbers relate to having 50% RE, or 100% RE, in the primary energy mix by 2050, which represents a very narrow area of “fighting climate change”. See Appendix for definitions of source, primary and upstream energy.

This report, prepared by two financial services organizations, estimates the world more-inclusive CAPEX at $100 trillion to $150 trillion, over the next 30 years, about $3 trillion to $5 trillion per year
https://www.investmentexecutive.com/news/research-and-markets/fundi...

NOTE: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated that an average of $3.5 trillion per year will be needed just in energy investments between 2016 and 2050 to achieve the 1.5-degree target.
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-must-halve-emission...

US More-Inclusive CAPEX

The ratio of World CAPEX for RE / US CAPEX for RE = 16,988/60,987 = 0.279

A more-inclusive US CAPEX could be $27.9 trillion to $41.8 trillion

The US CAPEX could be less, because, at present, the world is adding a quad of RE at about $58.95 billion, compare to the US at about $102.78 billion.

It is unclear what accounts for the large difference.
Part of it may be due to differences of accounting methods among countries.

NOTE: The CAPEX numbers exclude costs for replacements of shorter-life systems, such as EVs, heat-pumps, batteries, wind-turbines, etc., during these 30 years. For comparison:

Hydro plants have long lives, about 100 years.
Nuclear plants about 60 years
Coal and gas-turbine plants about 40 years
Wind turbine systems about 20 years
Solar systems about 25 years
Battery systems about 15 years