.
The Trump Administration paused construction of the controversial project — 54 turbines in the Atlantic Ocean some 14 miles south of Long Island — last week, saying it needs major environmental review.
The project has seen strong backing from Gov. Kathy Hochul and Mayor Eric Adams.
.
Trump’s move was welcomed by those who claim the project will overcharge ratepayers and taxpayers.
“New Yorkers are entitled to clean, affordable, reliable energy,” Christina Kramer, president of Protect Our Coast Long Island New York, told The Post. “And this is none of those things.”
The image shows five, 400-ft-tall windmills near Block Island, which have been plagued with many hours of down time.
.
.
In addition there will be major expansion and reinforcement of existing on-land grids, all at taxpayer and ratepayer expense.
.
The organization had requested the analysis from Edward P. O’Donnell, a New Jersey nuclear engineer and consultant who spent 35 years running nuclear plants.
“The Owners of Empire Wind One (54 windmills, total nameplate capacity 810 MW) were awarded a contract to charge 15.5 cents/kWh for variable, intermittent power,” O’Donnell told The Post. “It’s an above-market rate, because if you didn’t have Empire Wind One, the utilities would buy much more valuable, steady, power from the wholesale market at about 5 c/kWh.”
.
Owners would have to charge 30 c/kWh, if there were no subsidies, such as:
1) Federal and state tax credits, up to 50% (Community tax credit of 10 percent – Federal tax credit of 30 percent - State tax credit and other incentives up to 10%)
2) 5-y Accelerated Depreciation write off of the entire project
3) Loan interest deduction to reduce any taxable profits.
Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt
.
The total amount of the subsidy, O’Donnell said, would be $9 billion.
The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO), who manages the state’s power grid, is mandated, by law, to buy grid-disturbing power from environmentally destructive windmills, that last 20 to 25 years, instead of from 60%-efficient, gas-fired CCGT plants, that last 40 years or nuclear plants, that last 60 to 80 years.
.
The total amount of the subsidy, O’Donnell said, would be $9 billion.
The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO), who manages the state’s power grid, is mandated, by law, to buy grid-disturbing power from environmentally destructive windmills, that last 20 to 25 years, instead of from 60%-efficient, gas-fired CCGT plants, that last 40 years or nuclear plants, that last 60 to 80 years.
.
The federal Inflation Reduction Act provides a 30% tax credit for offshore wind projects that begin construction before Jan. 1, 2026, and additional credits are available for using US labor and building materials.
“The Owners who are building an $9 billion offshore wind project — that’s what they’re costing — can get up to half of that refunded as a tax credit,” O’Donnell said. “That’s on us, federal taxpayers throughout the US and New York ratepayers, as well as additions to state and federal debts. We’re all footing that bill.”
.
..
.
Congress may repeal the federal tax credit, O’Donnell said, but he also expects that would get thrown back at the consumer.
“If and when the tax credit gets repealed they would then lose $2 billion of their capital funding. They would go back to NYSERDA and say, we need another 5 c/kWh, or else we can’t go forward,” he speculated.
O’Donnell points to previous examples of Empire Wind One and another contractor, Sunrise Wind — which is building 84 turbines in the ocean 30 miles east of Montauk Point — having already done this.
.
In 2019, NYSERDA awarded a contract to Empire Wind One, owned by the Norwegian company Equinor, at a rate of 11.8 c/kWh for 25 years.
NYSERTA also agreed to pay Sunrise Wind, owned by Orsted, a Danish energy giant, 11.5 c/kWh for 25 years.
Three years later, both companies wanted rate hikes, citing high costs and supply chain bottlenecks caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
.
.
Graph showing the prices for power generated by the offshore wind projects compared to the standard market price, and how it is expected to raise over time.
Graph by Edward P. OâDonnell of. Whitestrand Consulting LLC., Long Beach Township, N.J
.
The requests were declined by the New York State Public Service Commission, but NYSERDA gave them the opportunity to rebid their contract and awarded them more money.
NYSERDA re-signed the developers with contracts at significantly higher prices: 15.5 c/kWh for Empire Wind One, a 31% increase, and 14.6 c/kWh for Sunrise, a 32% price hike.
.
“The Empire Wind One rebid ratepayer subsidy will total $9 billion over the life of the facility,” O’Donnell wrote in his report. “The 2024 present value of these above-market ratepayer costs is $6.2 billion, compared with $4.4 billion for the original Empire Wind One contract.”
O’Donnell claims New York ratepayers will provide $18 billion in subsidies to the two foreign offshore wind companies.
With the ratepayer and federal subsidies, O’Donnell says his research shows Equinor would see a rate of return on their investment over 20%, much higher than the 9% regulated utility companies are generally allowed to earn.
.
.
Empire Wind declined to comment on the subsidies.
A NYSERDA spokesperson declined to comment on the economic analysis but complained about its sponsor.
“Protect Our Coast Long Island is a vocal critic of offshore wind energy and has been engaged in a strategic political effort to derail New York’s offshore wind industry and the substantial economic opportunities it delivers,” the spokesperson said via email.
“Staff of the Department of the Interior has obtained information that raises serious issues with respect to the project approvals for the Empire Wind Project,” Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum wrote in a Wednesday letter to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
“Approval for the project was rushed through by the prior administration without sufficient analysis or consultation,” he added.
Kramer is pleased construction has stopped, but added: “I think that we’d be even more elated if they said, ‘Well, we’re just going to put a full stop to them.’ ”
.
.
ADDITIONS
.
HIGH COST/kWh OF W/S SYSTEMS FOISTED ONTO A BRAINWASHED PUBLIC
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-cost-kwh-of-w-s-s...
By Willem Post
.
What is generally not known, the more weather-dependent W/S systems, the less efficient the traditional generators, as they inefficiently counteract the increasingly larger ups and downs of W/S output. See URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reduction...
.
W/S systems add great cost to the overall delivery of electricity to users; the more W/S systems, the higher the cost/kWh, as proven by the UK and Germany, with the highest electricity rates in Europe, and near-zero, real-growth GDPs
At about 30% W/S, the entire system hits an increasingly thicker concrete wall, operationally and cost wise.
The UK and Germany are hitting the wall, more and more hours each day.
The cost of electricity delivered to users increased with each additional W/S/B system
.
Nuclear, gas, coal and reservoir hydro plants are the only rational way forward.
Increased CO2 ppm is an absolutely essential life gas for increased growth of green flora that supports abundant fauna, and increased crop yields to feed 8 billion people
Net zero by 2050 to reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/we-are-in-a-co2-famine
.
Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt:
1) Federal and state tax credits, up to 50% (Community tax credit of 10 percent – Federal tax credit of 30 percent - State tax credit and other incentives up to 10%);
2) 5-y Accelerated Depreciation write off of the entire project;
3) Loan interest deduction that reduce any taxable profits
.
Utilities pay 15 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from fixedoffshore wind systems
Utilities pay 18 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from floating offshore wind
Utilities pay 12 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from larger solar systems
.
Excluded costs, at a future 30% W/S annual penetration on the grid, based on UK and German experience:
- Onshore grid expansion/reinforcement to connect distributed W/S systems, about 2 c/kWh
- A fleet of traditional power plants to quickly counteract W/S variable output, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, which leads to more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
- A fleet of traditional power plants to provide electricity during 1) low-wind periods, 2) high-wind periods, when rotors are locked in place, and 3) low solar periods during mornings, evenings, at night, snow/ice on panels, which leads to more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
- Pay W/S system Owners for electricity they could have produced, if not curtailed, about 1 c/kWh
- Importing electricity at high prices, when W/S output is low, 1 c/kWh
- Exporting electricity at low prices, when W/S output is high, 1 c/kWh
- Disassembly on land and at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh
Some of these values exponentially increase as more W/S systems are added to the grid
.
The economic/financial insanity and environmental damage of it all is off the charts.
No wonder Europe’s near-zero, real-growth economy is in de-growth mode.
That economy has been tied into knots by inane people.
YOUR tax dollars are building these projects so YOU will have much higher electric bills.
Remove YOUR tax dollars using your vote, and none of these projects would be built, and YOUR electric bills would be lower.
.
.
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...
by Willem Post
.
Utility-scale, battery system pricing usually is not made public, but for this system it was.
Neoen, in western Australia, has just turned on its 219 MW/ 877 MWh Tesla Megapack battery, the largest in western Australia.
Ultimately, it will be a 560 MW/2,240 MWh battery system, $1,100,000,000/2,240,000 kWh = $491/kWh, delivered as AC, late 2024 pricing. Smaller capacity systems will cost much more than $500/kWh
.
Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing
Assume a system rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, and an all-in turnkey cost of $104.5 million, per Example 2
Amortize bank loan for 50% of $104.5 million at 6.5%/y for 15 years, $5.484 million/y
Pay Owner return of 50% of $104.5 million at 10%/y for 15 years, $6.765 million/y (10% due to high inflation)
Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = $183.7 million
Assume battery daily usage for 15 years at 10%, and loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9)
Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss
(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (tax credits, 5-y depreciation, loan interest deduction) is 92.3c/kWh
Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt
At 10% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 92.3 c/kWh
At 40% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 23.1 c/kWh
.
Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 20% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 4) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites. Excluded costs would add at least 15 c/kWh
COMMENTS ON CALCULATION
Almost all existing battery systems operate at less than 10%, per EIA annual reports i.e., new systems would operate at about 92.4 + 15 = 107.4 c/kWh. They are used to stabilize the grid, i.e., frequency control and counteracting up/down W/S outputs. If 40% throughput, 23.1 + 15 = 38.1 c/kWh.
A 4-h battery system costs 38.1 c/kWh of throughput, if operated at a duty factor of 40%.
That is on top of the cost/kWh of the electricity taken from the HV grid to feed the batteries
Up to 40% could occur by absorbing midday solar peaks and discharging during late-afternoon/early-evening, which occur every day in California and other sunny states. The more solar systems, the greater the peaks.
See URL for Megapacks required for a one-day wind lull in New England
40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charge above 80% and not discharge below 20%, to achieve a 15-y life, with normal aging.
Owners of battery systems with fires, likely charged above 80% and discharged below 20% to maximize profits.
Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the Owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They excessively charged/discharged the system. After a few years, they added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-res...
Regarding any project, the bank and Owner have to be paid, no matter what. I amortized the bank loan and Owner’s investment
Divide total payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, you get c/kWh, as shown.
There is about a 20% round-trip loss, from HV grid to 1) step-down transformer, 2) front-end power electronics, 3) into battery, 4) out of battery, 5) back-end power electronics, 6) step-up transformer, to HV grid, i.e., you draw about 50 units from the HV grid to deliver about 40 units to the HV grid, because of A-to-Z system losses. That gets worse with aging.
A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been repeatedly told by self-serving folks, battery Nirvana is just around the corner.
.
NOTE: Aerial photos of large-scale battery systems with many Megapacks, show many items of equipment, other than the Tesla supply, such as step-down/step-up transformers, switchgear, connections to the grid, land, access roads, fencing, security, site lighting, i.e., the cost of the Tesla supply is only one part of the battery system cost at a site.
.
NOTE: Battery system turnkey capital costs and electricity storage costs likely will be much higher in 2023 and future years, than in 2021 and earlier years, due to: 1) increased inflation rates, 2) increased interest rates, 3) supply chain disruptions, which delay projects and increase costs, 4) increased energy prices, such as of oil, gas, coal, electricity, etc.,
.
.
CO2 Has a Very Minor Global Warming Role in the Atmosphere
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-has-a-very-minor-r...
By Willem Post
.
Natural cycles drive our climate.
The current temperatures are higher than in 1850 by about 1.5 C, but only a small fraction of that can be attributed to CO2.
The rest is due to 1) coming out of the Little Ice Age and 2) manmade changes to the earth surface.
.
We need a Pro-life, Pro-CO2 Coalition
Without CO2 there would be no flora and fauna, there would be no life on earth
Net Zero by 2050 is a suicide pact conjured up by climate zealots who are leading the IPCC, and claim they own the science.
.
They deny the Little Ice Age, support fraudulent computer temperature projections, and are using the USAID-subsidized Corporate Media to cow/control/brainwash the people, already for 35 years
CO2 is a trace, weak absorber of a small fraction of the available low-energy IR photons.
CO2 has near-zero influence on world surface temperatures
Fossil fuels are good, because they make possible our civilizations, plus they provide extra CO2 to increase crop yields to feed hungry people.
.
.
CO2 is a life-giving Gas; We Are in a CO2 Famine
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/we-are-in-a-co2-famine
By Willem Post
.
Atmospheric CO2 ppm, human plus natural, it is near the lowest level in 600 million years.
Highly subsidized CO2 sequestering schemes and Net Zero by 2050 schemes are super-expensive, ineffective suicide programs that benefit the self-serving, moneyed elites, while impoverishing all others.
.
Crops in open fields, with CO2 at 420 ppm, require fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and much machinery to have high yields/acre.
Crops in greenhouses, with CO2 at 1200 ppm, require minimal chemicals, have 2 to 3 times higher yields/acre
https://www.masterresource.org/carbon-dioxide/increased-plant-produ...
.
Plants are on a starvation diet with CO2 at 420 ppm
The image shows plant growth at 420 ppm; at 420 +150; at 420 +300; at 420+450
.