The Telegraph
"Britain’s green energy disaster should be an awful warning to Americans"
Story by Capell Aris
11 JUNE 2023
Last year, the Biden administration set an ambitious new goal for the USA: to deploy 30 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind capacity by the year 2030, increasing US offshore capacity more than seven hundred times over.
The UK already has 15 GW of offshore wind, more than 300 times as much as the USA: and our experience should be a terrible warning to Americans.
The UK’s electricity prices are the highest since records began in 1920 and are now amongst the highest in all Europe.
One reason for this is obvious: slightly less than half our electricity comes from gas-burning Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGTs) and gas now costs £90 per megawatt-hour (MWh), nearly five times higher than normal.
CCGTs are cheap to build (around £650m per GW) and operate.
In normal times they would generate electricity at a total cost of £40 per MWh.
That’s now risen to nearly £150/MWh, thanks to Vladimir Putin and his impact on the gas market.
But that’s not the whole story.
The other reason why British electricity is so expensive is because we have so much wind power: particularly, so much offshore wind power.
Bad though the current situation is, we would be an even worse state if we had built even more offshore wind, as the British government plans to.
As an example, the offshore wind farms Hornsea Two and Moray East were completed in 2022 with capital costs of £2.77 billion per GW and £2.75bn/GW, more than four times the cost of CCGT capacity.
They’re expensive to maintain, which is not surprising since offshore windfarms have all their many generators mounted at the top of 200-metre tall masts far away from land.
Estimates of maintenance costs are as high as £200m per GW installed, per annum.
The nominal cost of offshore wind generation is £170/MWh – noticeably higher than that for CCGTs, even in these dire times of high gas prices.
The other factor to bear in mind is that not only is wind capacity extremely expensive to build, wind farms do not deliver anything like their rated capacity over time.
This is bad news for the customer, because the higher the capacity factor – that is, the higher the percentage of the rated capacity the powerplant actually delivers over time – the cheaper the energy.
In 2022 the UK’s onshore and offshore windfarms operated with a capacity factor of 33 per cent.
In 2021 it was only 29 per cent.
It gets worse.
Like most other renewable generation technologies, wind power is unpredictably intermittent and highly variable.
Also, since wind turbines are not synchronously connected to the grid, they provide no “grid inertia” – more on that shortly.
Wind turbines cannot be asked to deliver energy when it is required, and their output changes rapidly.
These failings must be mitigated and costed, and users have to pay for these costs on top of the price of the electricity.
In 2021 the UK annual grid balancing costs reached £4.19 billion, £150 per household.
For context, back in 1995 when we didn’t have much wind power the balancing cost for the grid was a mere £250 million per annum.
A large, and growing, contribution to these costs is constraint management, as when a wind farm producing electricity which isn’t wanted – perhaps when it is windy in the middle of the night – is paid not to put that electricity into the grid.
The problems and costs don’t stop there.
Our transmission grid system was originally designed to link generation centres close to sources of fuel (coal, gas) and load centres such as cities.
Now our generation sites are moving further away from load centres.
Our grid transmission system has to be expanded to connect the new renewable generators, which is bad enough when they are on a remote hilltop and worse still when they are out at sea.
The National Grid estimates that on current plans this work will cost £46 billion – £1,533 per household – to 2030.
Then there’s grid inertia.
The British grid is termed an island grid, which means that we are solely responsible for controlling the grid frequency between tight limits so that things plugged into the grid will work as expected.
Frequency control becomes easier as the inertia of the grid system increases.
Grid system inertia is a key measure of how resilient the system is in response to transient changes.
Inertia is the sum of the energy stored within the rotating mass of the machines (generators and motors) connected directly to the system.
Low system inertia increases the risk of rapid system changes, which may then lead to disconnection of load or generation and then system instability.
Apart from tree-burning biomass stations and hydro generation, renewables plants bring no inertia to the grid: as the proportion of renewables rises, system inertia falls and the risk of major problems such as blackouts increases.
We have attempted to reduce the issue of intermittency by expanding our connections to the European electricity grid – the hope being that the wind will be blowing somewhere else even if it is not blowing here – but we’re still exposed to periods when wind generation across the whole of Europe falls near to nothing.
And these connections do not help with inertia and stability either because few of the connections to the continent are synchronous connections.
In 1995 the problem of grid frequency stability required provision of rapidly responding generators capable of changing their combined output at a rate of 0.13 GW per second in order to deal with fluctuations.
With the arrival of so much unpredictable wind power, that figure has now increased almost tenfold to 1.15 GW per second!
Extra services like very rapid response gas generators, required in order to make it possible to connect renewables to the grid, add between £30/MWh and £50/MWh to renewables’ cost.
Thus the true cost to the customer of offshore wind generators is actually between £200/MWh and £220/MWh, much more than CCGTs even in these times of ruinously high gas prices.
Phasing out CCGT production will therefore increase domestic electricity prices painfully.
But it seems that CCGTs will be phased out much sooner than planned.
The government has proposed an expansion to 60 GW of offshore wind by 2030 (capital expenditure £122 billion) and solar to 70 GW by 2035 (capital expenditure to 2030 £30 billion).
This is extremely unwise: we still have no way of storing electricity at scale and the planned transitions of home heating and transport to electrical power are progressing weakly and may yet stall completely.
Creating such a large solar generation fleet raises the nightmare scenario of early summer mornings, with little demand and the vast majority of generation being solar with zero inertia: massive grid collapses would be all but a certainty.
Vast amounts of energy will be generated only to be expensively constrained off and probably wasted, and the scenario of unmet demand – with attendant blackouts – will become unavoidable.
The UK grid is simply not able to cope with the proposed amounts of renewables.
And we simply cannot afford all this.
If we add the costs of an even more extended National Grid, this programme of wind and solar generation expansion will cost £232 billion – more than £8,000 per household this decade – all to be paid for by the suffering energy user.
It should be emphasised that these figures do not include the costs of the huge energy storage industry which will also be necessary, whatever that may turn out to be: hydrogen or ammonia or something even more dangerous and expensive.
Heat pumps and switching to electric vehicles could lift total costs above £1 trillion.
Truly, Americans should look at the British renewables disaster and give thanks that today they have hardly any offshore wind.
And they might, looking at the UK, recoil with horror from the plans of the Biden administration: especially as most US offshore wind will need to be floating offshore wind rather than built on the seabed, and so even more expensive.
If either nation would like to reduce carbon emissions and/or reduce its dependence on fossil fuels supplied by unsavoury overseas regimes, an immediate measure would be to build new, modern, high efficiency CCGT plant which would immediately cut the need for gas and reduce emissions without requiring vast, expensive alterations to the grid and special measures so that they don’t cause it to collapse.
We should also begin building new nuclear plant with some genuine urgency, as that is the only genuine, affordable, practical way to seriously cut emissions and achieve secure energy supplies.
Dr Capell Aris PhD has spent his career in the electricity generation sector. He is a former Fellow of the Institute of Engineering and Technology
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/br ... c1f4&ei=30
WINDMILLS AND SOLAR FARMS
Re: WINDMILLS AND SOLAR FARMS
The Telegraph
"Britain fires up coal plant as solar panels suffer in hot weather"
Story by Melissa Lawford, Chris Price, Benedict Smith
12 JUNE 2023
Britain has started burning coal to generate electricity for the first time in a month and a half, after the heatwave made solar panels too hot to work efficiently.
One unit at Uniper’s Ratcliffe-on-Soar coal power plant in Nottinghamshire started producing electricity for the first time in weeks on Monday morning, while another coal-powered plant was warmed up in case it was needed by the early afternoon.
The National Grid turned to coal to generate electricity as a rush to turn on air conditioning and fans across the country during the heatwave led to a spike in demand.
High temperatures over the weekend also reduced the amount of energy generated from solar panels.
Output on Sunday was almost a third lower than a week earlier, despite temperatures climbing above 30 degrees celsius across large parts of the country.
Solar panels are tested at a benchmark of 25C.
For every degree rise in temperature above this level, the efficiency is reduced by 0.5 percentage points.
The temperature level refers to the solar cell temperature, rather than the air temperature.
In direct sunlight, the cells can easily reach 60 or 70 degrees.
Alastair Buckley, professor of organic electronics at the University of Sheffield, said: “Both days were largely sunny in the morning, so a good part of the reduction in output will be due to the efficiency reduction from higher temperatures on Saturday compared to Friday."
“Compared with a cool cloudy day, the cells might be a maximum of 25pc less efficient.”
Supply was also lower because of depressed wind speeds, which hit turbine output, and some gas power plants being shut for maintenance.
The weekend’s heatwave was followed by storms across Britain, which disrupted both domestic and international travel.
More than 15,000 easyJet passengers have seen their flights cancelled over the past few days as a result of the thunderstorms.
The airline axed 54 flights scheduled to take off or depart from Gatwick Airport on Sunday, with a further 55 grounded on Monday.
Meanwhile, Londoners battled through flood water on Monday evening after thunderstorms overwhelmed drainage systems.
Motorists in Barnet, North London, were filmed driving through water-filled streets, while London Fire Brigade said it had been called to “several reports” of flooding.
A yellow weather warning was in place for parts of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and much of England on Monday.
A more severe amber alert was issued for parts of southern England and the Midlands, where the Met Office said homes and businesses were “likely” to be flooded.
Members of the public were advised to keep their phones charged in case of power cuts.
Grahame Madge, a Met Office meteorologist, said: “By their nature, [thunderstorms] develop quickly and in almost seemingly random areas.
“We are advising that people might want to think about how suddenly they can be subjected to flash flooding or a power cut."
"Are people prepared?"
"Make sure mobile phones are charged and that sort of thing.”
While the rain brought some welcome relief to plants after weeks without precipitation, woodland conservation charities have raised the alarm about the survival of urban trees during Britain’s increasingly hot, dry summers.
Charities including the Arboricultural Association are asking the public to help water street trees.
It is thought that between 30-50pc of newly-planted urban trees die within the first year.
Each needs up to 50 litres of water per week.
Coal was producing around 0.7pc of the electricity being used in the UK on Sunday.
It brought to an end a 46-day coal-free period for Britain’s grid, shy of the nearly 68-day record it set in the summer of 2020.
That was the longest single period since 1882 that the grid went without burning coal to produce electricity.
Before Monday, the last time the National Grid used coal was for a 22.5-hour period ending at half past midnight on April 27.
Octopus Energy on Tuesday called for the National Grid to introduce a permanent scheme to reward customers for using less energy at peak times in order to reduce dependence on coal.
Nearly 700,000 Octopus smart meter users received £5.4m under its Savings Session trial over winter, where customers were paid to use less power than they otherwise normally would during peak times.
In total, Octopus said its scheme shifted 1.86Gwh of electricity demand to times of less stress on the network - the equivalent of stopping two million washing machine runs.
Octopus argued that rolling out the system across Britain would reduce the cost of the National Grid’s coal contingency by about three quarters, from £340-395m last winter to just £106m.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topst ... 8712&ei=14
"Britain fires up coal plant as solar panels suffer in hot weather"
Story by Melissa Lawford, Chris Price, Benedict Smith
12 JUNE 2023
Britain has started burning coal to generate electricity for the first time in a month and a half, after the heatwave made solar panels too hot to work efficiently.
One unit at Uniper’s Ratcliffe-on-Soar coal power plant in Nottinghamshire started producing electricity for the first time in weeks on Monday morning, while another coal-powered plant was warmed up in case it was needed by the early afternoon.
The National Grid turned to coal to generate electricity as a rush to turn on air conditioning and fans across the country during the heatwave led to a spike in demand.
High temperatures over the weekend also reduced the amount of energy generated from solar panels.
Output on Sunday was almost a third lower than a week earlier, despite temperatures climbing above 30 degrees celsius across large parts of the country.
Solar panels are tested at a benchmark of 25C.
For every degree rise in temperature above this level, the efficiency is reduced by 0.5 percentage points.
The temperature level refers to the solar cell temperature, rather than the air temperature.
In direct sunlight, the cells can easily reach 60 or 70 degrees.
Alastair Buckley, professor of organic electronics at the University of Sheffield, said: “Both days were largely sunny in the morning, so a good part of the reduction in output will be due to the efficiency reduction from higher temperatures on Saturday compared to Friday."
“Compared with a cool cloudy day, the cells might be a maximum of 25pc less efficient.”
Supply was also lower because of depressed wind speeds, which hit turbine output, and some gas power plants being shut for maintenance.
The weekend’s heatwave was followed by storms across Britain, which disrupted both domestic and international travel.
More than 15,000 easyJet passengers have seen their flights cancelled over the past few days as a result of the thunderstorms.
The airline axed 54 flights scheduled to take off or depart from Gatwick Airport on Sunday, with a further 55 grounded on Monday.
Meanwhile, Londoners battled through flood water on Monday evening after thunderstorms overwhelmed drainage systems.
Motorists in Barnet, North London, were filmed driving through water-filled streets, while London Fire Brigade said it had been called to “several reports” of flooding.
A yellow weather warning was in place for parts of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and much of England on Monday.
A more severe amber alert was issued for parts of southern England and the Midlands, where the Met Office said homes and businesses were “likely” to be flooded.
Members of the public were advised to keep their phones charged in case of power cuts.
Grahame Madge, a Met Office meteorologist, said: “By their nature, [thunderstorms] develop quickly and in almost seemingly random areas.
“We are advising that people might want to think about how suddenly they can be subjected to flash flooding or a power cut."
"Are people prepared?"
"Make sure mobile phones are charged and that sort of thing.”
While the rain brought some welcome relief to plants after weeks without precipitation, woodland conservation charities have raised the alarm about the survival of urban trees during Britain’s increasingly hot, dry summers.
Charities including the Arboricultural Association are asking the public to help water street trees.
It is thought that between 30-50pc of newly-planted urban trees die within the first year.
Each needs up to 50 litres of water per week.
Coal was producing around 0.7pc of the electricity being used in the UK on Sunday.
It brought to an end a 46-day coal-free period for Britain’s grid, shy of the nearly 68-day record it set in the summer of 2020.
That was the longest single period since 1882 that the grid went without burning coal to produce electricity.
Before Monday, the last time the National Grid used coal was for a 22.5-hour period ending at half past midnight on April 27.
Octopus Energy on Tuesday called for the National Grid to introduce a permanent scheme to reward customers for using less energy at peak times in order to reduce dependence on coal.
Nearly 700,000 Octopus smart meter users received £5.4m under its Savings Session trial over winter, where customers were paid to use less power than they otherwise normally would during peak times.
In total, Octopus said its scheme shifted 1.86Gwh of electricity demand to times of less stress on the network - the equivalent of stopping two million washing machine runs.
Octopus argued that rolling out the system across Britain would reduce the cost of the National Grid’s coal contingency by about three quarters, from £340-395m last winter to just £106m.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topst ... 8712&ei=14
Re: WINDMILLS AND SOLAR FARMS
The Daily Caller
"Massive Energy Corporation Says Up To 30% Of Its Wind Turbines Could Be Malfunctioning"
Story by Will Kessler
23 JUNE 2023
Siemens Energy announced Thursday that it will be undergoing a technical review after it was found that up to 30% of its wind turbines could have faulty components, according to statements made by the company.
Siemens Energy, an international energy company that seeks to “decarbonize global energy systems,” announced that it is withdrawing its profit guidance for the year after subsidiary Siemens Gamesa found that there was a “substantial increase in failure rates of wind turbine components.”
The company believes that between 15% and 30% of its installed fleets are suffering from component failures, Jochen Eickholt, CEO of Siemens Gamesa, said during a Friday morning analyst call.
“The fact that we have identified more quality problems marks a significant setback for us."
"These quality problems go beyond what we were previously aware of, and they are directly linked to selective components at a few but important suppliers,” Christian Bruch, President and CEO of Siemens Energy, said during the call.
“At this point in time, we believe that the costs are likely to be in excess of 1 billion euros.”
Siemens Energy stock fell 36% as of Friday morning after the announcement, according to MarketWatch.
The use of wind energy has received criticism as operations grow in size, incurring more maintenance costs and environmental concerns.
Newer, larger turbines designed to generate enough power to fuel renewable energy desires suffer from a greater rate of component failure, resulting in higher maintenance costs, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Some environmentalists also claim that wind farms harm animals, including birds, through habitat destruction and obstructing air travel.
Siemens Energy deferred the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment to the statements previously made in the announcement and analyst call.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compani ... 4e44&ei=39
"Massive Energy Corporation Says Up To 30% Of Its Wind Turbines Could Be Malfunctioning"
Story by Will Kessler
23 JUNE 2023
Siemens Energy announced Thursday that it will be undergoing a technical review after it was found that up to 30% of its wind turbines could have faulty components, according to statements made by the company.
Siemens Energy, an international energy company that seeks to “decarbonize global energy systems,” announced that it is withdrawing its profit guidance for the year after subsidiary Siemens Gamesa found that there was a “substantial increase in failure rates of wind turbine components.”
The company believes that between 15% and 30% of its installed fleets are suffering from component failures, Jochen Eickholt, CEO of Siemens Gamesa, said during a Friday morning analyst call.
“The fact that we have identified more quality problems marks a significant setback for us."
"These quality problems go beyond what we were previously aware of, and they are directly linked to selective components at a few but important suppliers,” Christian Bruch, President and CEO of Siemens Energy, said during the call.
“At this point in time, we believe that the costs are likely to be in excess of 1 billion euros.”
Siemens Energy stock fell 36% as of Friday morning after the announcement, according to MarketWatch.
The use of wind energy has received criticism as operations grow in size, incurring more maintenance costs and environmental concerns.
Newer, larger turbines designed to generate enough power to fuel renewable energy desires suffer from a greater rate of component failure, resulting in higher maintenance costs, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Some environmentalists also claim that wind farms harm animals, including birds, through habitat destruction and obstructing air travel.
Siemens Energy deferred the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment to the statements previously made in the announcement and analyst call.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compani ... 4e44&ei=39
Re: WINDMILLS AND SOLAR FARMS
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JUNE 25, 2023
Time to fight Offshore Wind Projects
Reader submitted content.
(AP) by Wayne Parry, Associated Press Ocean City, N.J
Opponents of offshore wind energy projects in New Jersey are gathering force legally and politically as they seek to snuff out the nascent industry.
Within the last week, three residents groups sued New Jersey over a key approval of its first planned wind farm; the research arm of Congress agreed to investigate the impact of offshore wind on the environment and other areas; and lawmakers in two counties most heavily impacted by wind farms stepped up their efforts to block the projects. Save Long Beach Island, Defend Brigantine Beach, and Protect Our Coast NJ filed an appeal Friday in state Superior Court of New Jersey’s determination that the Ocean Wind I project is consistent with state coastal management rules.
The project is New Jersey’s first, and a U.S. subsidiary of Danish wind developer Orsted could begin construction this year if remaining approvals are obtained.
The appeal follows a decision by the investigative arm of Congress, the Congressional Accountability Office, to study the impact of offshore wind on the environment and other areas — something opponents have long wanted.
Bruce Afran, an attorney for the groups, said the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection “has acknowledged the wind turbines will destroy marine habitat, compress the seafl oor, severely damage marine communities, compromise migration corridors for endangered marine mammals, cause commercial fishing stocks to decline, and injure the beach economy.”
“Yet, the state persists in the bizarre belief that this massive engineering project will not injure our state’s coastal zone, one of the most important marine communities on the East Coast and the core of New Jersey’s $47 billion tourist industry,” Mr. Afran added.
The DEP declined to comment, and state attorney general’s office did not respond to requests for comment.
Jeanne Fox, former head of the DEP, the state Board of Public Utilities and former regional head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, called the lawsuit “a delay tactic.”
“Numerous environmental studies have been done regarding offshore wind, for this specific Ocean Wind project and in general,” Ms. Fox said. “The greatest threat to the ocean habitat, sea mammals and fish is the climate crisis. Offshore wind will lessen the need to burn more fossil fuels.”
The project would build 98 wind turbines about 15 miles off the coast of Ocean City and Atlantic City. It is the first of three offshore wind projects to receive approval in New Jersey so far, with several more expected in years to come.
Mr. Afran cited numerous sections of the DEP’s April decision on Ocean Wind I acknowledging potential negative impacts on the surf clam industry; changes to the ocean floor from wind turbine foundations and equipment; and the regular use of the area as a migratory channel by five species of whales, including the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/time-t ... ent-815425
Time to fight Offshore Wind Projects
Reader submitted content.
(AP) by Wayne Parry, Associated Press Ocean City, N.J
Opponents of offshore wind energy projects in New Jersey are gathering force legally and politically as they seek to snuff out the nascent industry.
Within the last week, three residents groups sued New Jersey over a key approval of its first planned wind farm; the research arm of Congress agreed to investigate the impact of offshore wind on the environment and other areas; and lawmakers in two counties most heavily impacted by wind farms stepped up their efforts to block the projects. Save Long Beach Island, Defend Brigantine Beach, and Protect Our Coast NJ filed an appeal Friday in state Superior Court of New Jersey’s determination that the Ocean Wind I project is consistent with state coastal management rules.
The project is New Jersey’s first, and a U.S. subsidiary of Danish wind developer Orsted could begin construction this year if remaining approvals are obtained.
The appeal follows a decision by the investigative arm of Congress, the Congressional Accountability Office, to study the impact of offshore wind on the environment and other areas — something opponents have long wanted.
Bruce Afran, an attorney for the groups, said the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection “has acknowledged the wind turbines will destroy marine habitat, compress the seafl oor, severely damage marine communities, compromise migration corridors for endangered marine mammals, cause commercial fishing stocks to decline, and injure the beach economy.”
“Yet, the state persists in the bizarre belief that this massive engineering project will not injure our state’s coastal zone, one of the most important marine communities on the East Coast and the core of New Jersey’s $47 billion tourist industry,” Mr. Afran added.
The DEP declined to comment, and state attorney general’s office did not respond to requests for comment.
Jeanne Fox, former head of the DEP, the state Board of Public Utilities and former regional head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, called the lawsuit “a delay tactic.”
“Numerous environmental studies have been done regarding offshore wind, for this specific Ocean Wind project and in general,” Ms. Fox said. “The greatest threat to the ocean habitat, sea mammals and fish is the climate crisis. Offshore wind will lessen the need to burn more fossil fuels.”
The project would build 98 wind turbines about 15 miles off the coast of Ocean City and Atlantic City. It is the first of three offshore wind projects to receive approval in New Jersey so far, with several more expected in years to come.
Mr. Afran cited numerous sections of the DEP’s April decision on Ocean Wind I acknowledging potential negative impacts on the surf clam industry; changes to the ocean floor from wind turbine foundations and equipment; and the regular use of the area as a migratory channel by five species of whales, including the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/time-t ... ent-815425
Re: WINDMILLS AND SOLAR FARMS
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JUNE 25, 2023 AT 10:53 AM
Paul Plante, NYSPE says:
CCM: “Numerous environmental studies have been done regarding offshore wind, for this specific Ocean Wind project and in general,” Ms. Fox said.
“The greatest threat to the ocean habitat, sea mammals and fish is the climate crisis.”
“Offshore wind will lessen the need to burn more fossil fuels.”
*********************************
All of which is pure UNSCIENTIFIC BULL**** which begins with a flawed and unproven, unprovable and quite hysterical premise that there is in fact a CLIMATE CRISIS!
THE SKY IS GOING TO FALL, PEOPLE, THEREFORE IT IS FALLING, IT’S GOING TO KILL US ALL UNLESS WE THROW TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS AT IT, AND IN THE MEANTIME, BE SCARED AND RUN LIKE HELL FOR THE NEAREST SHELTER!
Where is the PROOF of a climate crisis?
There is NONE!
It is a hysterical speculation!
Is the climate changing?
Of course, because it is always changing.
Are windmills going to stop the climate from changing?
Not at all, and in fact, by disrupting air flow, they will exacerbate it.
But we are dealing with LAWYER’s GAMES here, people, not “science,” which today is a mockable word worthy of nothing but contempt, because it has become synonymous with STUPID.
And what the lawyer’s are doing is starting from the unproven premise that there is a CLIMATE CRISIS, and then when they do their supposed environmental impact statements, and this can all be independently verified by going to the Bureau of Ocean Management (BOEM) website https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/n ... ble-energy , they arrange the supposed “facts” to support the pre-determined conclusion that these wind farms are good for the environment, to wit:
* Environmental Assessments in Support of Leasing
* Environmental Impact Statements in Support of Project Approvals
And that, people, is a clear PERVERSION of the true purpose of doing an actual, independent, scientific environmental impact analysis, because you don’t do environmental impact studies to support what you have already decided to do, as is the case here.
You do a proper environmental impact assessment of WHAT YOU PROPOSE!
But that is all gone down the toilet and out the drain now.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/time-t ... ent-815425
Paul Plante, NYSPE says:
CCM: “Numerous environmental studies have been done regarding offshore wind, for this specific Ocean Wind project and in general,” Ms. Fox said.
“The greatest threat to the ocean habitat, sea mammals and fish is the climate crisis.”
“Offshore wind will lessen the need to burn more fossil fuels.”
*********************************
All of which is pure UNSCIENTIFIC BULL**** which begins with a flawed and unproven, unprovable and quite hysterical premise that there is in fact a CLIMATE CRISIS!
THE SKY IS GOING TO FALL, PEOPLE, THEREFORE IT IS FALLING, IT’S GOING TO KILL US ALL UNLESS WE THROW TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS AT IT, AND IN THE MEANTIME, BE SCARED AND RUN LIKE HELL FOR THE NEAREST SHELTER!
Where is the PROOF of a climate crisis?
There is NONE!
It is a hysterical speculation!
Is the climate changing?
Of course, because it is always changing.
Are windmills going to stop the climate from changing?
Not at all, and in fact, by disrupting air flow, they will exacerbate it.
But we are dealing with LAWYER’s GAMES here, people, not “science,” which today is a mockable word worthy of nothing but contempt, because it has become synonymous with STUPID.
And what the lawyer’s are doing is starting from the unproven premise that there is a CLIMATE CRISIS, and then when they do their supposed environmental impact statements, and this can all be independently verified by going to the Bureau of Ocean Management (BOEM) website https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/n ... ble-energy , they arrange the supposed “facts” to support the pre-determined conclusion that these wind farms are good for the environment, to wit:
* Environmental Assessments in Support of Leasing
* Environmental Impact Statements in Support of Project Approvals
And that, people, is a clear PERVERSION of the true purpose of doing an actual, independent, scientific environmental impact analysis, because you don’t do environmental impact studies to support what you have already decided to do, as is the case here.
You do a proper environmental impact assessment of WHAT YOU PROPOSE!
But that is all gone down the toilet and out the drain now.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/time-t ... ent-815425
Re: WINDMILLS AND SOLAR FARMS
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JUNE 27, 2023 AT 10:44 AM
Paul Plante, NYSPE says:
CCM: Jeanne Fox, former head of the DEP, the state Board of Public Utilities and former regional head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, called the lawsuit “a delay tactic.”
* * * * *
So who then is this Jeanne Fox who is telling us that “The greatest threat to the ocean habitat, sea mammals and fish is the climate crisis,” and “Offshore wind will lessen the need to burn more fossil fuels,” other than just another political hack, because only politically-reliable political hacks get those kinds of positions in the first place, and why would anyone in their right mind then believe a word she says, about anything, but specifically about off-shore windmill farms?
Other than being politically reliable, what particular expertise does she possess that would make her any kind of expert on the subject?
For example, if we go to her all-important Linked in page, which is where important people like Jeanne Fox let the candid world know just how incredible and important they are, what we find for her is as follows, to wit: Climate Crisis fighter, Adjunct Professor, Feminist, Public Servant.
And there we have it, people, for that is it.
And that in turn brings us to a Daily Caller article titled “Massive Energy Corporation Says Up To 30% Of Its Wind Turbines Could Be Malfunctioning” by Will Kessler on 23 June 2023, where we have a dose of the reality that eludes “Climate Crisis fighter” Jeanne Fox, to wit:
Siemens Energy announced Thursday that it will be undergoing a technical review after it was found that up to 30% of its wind turbines could have faulty components, according to statements made by the company.
Siemens Energy, an international energy company that seeks to “decarbonize global energy systems,” announced that it is withdrawing its profit guidance for the year after subsidiary Siemens Gamesa found that there was a “substantial increase in failure rates of wind turbine components.”
The company believes that between 15% and 30% of its installed fleets are suffering from component failures, Jochen Eickholt, CEO of Siemens Gamesa, said during a Friday morning analyst call.
“The fact that we have identified more quality problems marks a significant setback for us.”
“These quality problems go beyond what we were previously aware of, and they are directly linked to selective components at a few but important suppliers,” Christian Bruch, President and CEO of Siemens Energy, said during the call.
“At this point in time, we believe that the costs are likely to be in excess of 1 billion euros.”
Siemens Energy stock fell 36% as of Friday morning after the announcement, according to MarketWatch.
The use of wind energy has received criticism as operations grow in size, incurring more maintenance costs and environmental concerns.
Newer, larger turbines designed to generate enough power to fuel renewable energy desires suffer from a greater rate of component failure, resulting in higher maintenance costs, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Some environmentalists also claim that wind farms harm animals, including birds, through habitat destruction and obstructing air travel.
end quotes
So, people, ask yourself this important question here – who do we believe?
Should we take the word of self-professed and self-acclaimed “Climate Crisis fighter” Jeanne Fox who is parroting the Biden line, here, telling us “Offshore wind will lessen the need to burn more fossil fuels?”
Or should we perhaps go with reality as it exists, instead?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/time-t ... ent-815425
Paul Plante, NYSPE says:
CCM: Jeanne Fox, former head of the DEP, the state Board of Public Utilities and former regional head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, called the lawsuit “a delay tactic.”
* * * * *
So who then is this Jeanne Fox who is telling us that “The greatest threat to the ocean habitat, sea mammals and fish is the climate crisis,” and “Offshore wind will lessen the need to burn more fossil fuels,” other than just another political hack, because only politically-reliable political hacks get those kinds of positions in the first place, and why would anyone in their right mind then believe a word she says, about anything, but specifically about off-shore windmill farms?
Other than being politically reliable, what particular expertise does she possess that would make her any kind of expert on the subject?
For example, if we go to her all-important Linked in page, which is where important people like Jeanne Fox let the candid world know just how incredible and important they are, what we find for her is as follows, to wit: Climate Crisis fighter, Adjunct Professor, Feminist, Public Servant.
And there we have it, people, for that is it.
And that in turn brings us to a Daily Caller article titled “Massive Energy Corporation Says Up To 30% Of Its Wind Turbines Could Be Malfunctioning” by Will Kessler on 23 June 2023, where we have a dose of the reality that eludes “Climate Crisis fighter” Jeanne Fox, to wit:
Siemens Energy announced Thursday that it will be undergoing a technical review after it was found that up to 30% of its wind turbines could have faulty components, according to statements made by the company.
Siemens Energy, an international energy company that seeks to “decarbonize global energy systems,” announced that it is withdrawing its profit guidance for the year after subsidiary Siemens Gamesa found that there was a “substantial increase in failure rates of wind turbine components.”
The company believes that between 15% and 30% of its installed fleets are suffering from component failures, Jochen Eickholt, CEO of Siemens Gamesa, said during a Friday morning analyst call.
“The fact that we have identified more quality problems marks a significant setback for us.”
“These quality problems go beyond what we were previously aware of, and they are directly linked to selective components at a few but important suppliers,” Christian Bruch, President and CEO of Siemens Energy, said during the call.
“At this point in time, we believe that the costs are likely to be in excess of 1 billion euros.”
Siemens Energy stock fell 36% as of Friday morning after the announcement, according to MarketWatch.
The use of wind energy has received criticism as operations grow in size, incurring more maintenance costs and environmental concerns.
Newer, larger turbines designed to generate enough power to fuel renewable energy desires suffer from a greater rate of component failure, resulting in higher maintenance costs, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Some environmentalists also claim that wind farms harm animals, including birds, through habitat destruction and obstructing air travel.
end quotes
So, people, ask yourself this important question here – who do we believe?
Should we take the word of self-professed and self-acclaimed “Climate Crisis fighter” Jeanne Fox who is parroting the Biden line, here, telling us “Offshore wind will lessen the need to burn more fossil fuels?”
Or should we perhaps go with reality as it exists, instead?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/time-t ... ent-815425
Re: WINDMILLS AND SOLAR FARMS
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JUNE 28, 2023 AT 8:52 PM
Paul Plante, NYSPE says:
And what an arrogant title that is that this Jeanne Fox claims for herself as a “climate crisis fighter,” which makes one wonder what she has armed herself with to fight the climate crisis, whether an AR-15 modified to fire on full automatic, or “rock and roll” as we VEET NAM grunts termed it, or is she armed with something more lethal like a Stinger missile.
But my goodness, enough about her, since this is about windmills, as opposed to how a real “climate crisis fighter” like Jeanne Fox actually goes about fighting the so-called “climate crisis,” and that brings us back to the real world the majority of us who are not “climate crisis fighters” like Jeanne Fox live in, which takes us to an article from the Brit publication The Telegraph titled “Britain’s green energy disaster should be an awful warning to Americans” by Capell Aris on 11 June 2023, where we have as follows on the subject of windmills, to wit:
Last year, the Biden administration set an ambitious new goal for the USA: to deploy 30 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind capacity by the year 2030, increasing US offshore capacity more than seven hundred times over.
end quote
And as we who live in the real world, as opposed to the fantasy world Joe Biden and his windmill crowd spend their time in, know, that should be the clueless, short-sighted, shallow-thinking Biden administration has set an ambitious new goal for the USA: to deploy 30 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind capacity by the year 2030, increasing US offshore capacity more than seven hundred times over, which takes us back to the reality “climate crisis fighters” like Jeanne Fox are totally unaware of in their delusionl state, to wit:
The UK already has 15 GW of offshore wind, more than 300 times as much as the USA: and our experience should be a terrible warning to Americans.
end quote
But it won’t be, because we are stupid and we are terrified that unless Joe Biden can save us with all his windmills, we are going to die in twelve or less years from global warming, which is going to kill us, sure as anything, if we don’t die of something else beforehand, like getting burned to death in an exploding E-car, which again takes us back to the story, to wit:
The UK’s electricity prices are the highest since records began in 1920 and are now amongst the highest in all Europe.
One reason for this is obvious: slightly less than half our electricity comes from gas-burning Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGTs) and gas now costs £90 per megawatt-hour (MWh), nearly five times higher than normal.
In normal times they would generate electricity at a total cost of £40 per MWh.
That’s now risen to nearly £150/MWh, thanks to Vladimir Putin and his impact on the gas market.
But that’s not the whole story.
The other reason why British electricity is so expensive is because we have so much wind power: particularly, so much offshore wind power.
Bad though the current situation is, we would be an even worse state if we had built even more offshore wind, as the British government plans to.
As an example, the offshore wind farms Hornsea Two and Moray East were completed in 2022 with capital costs of £2.77 billion per GW and £2.75bn/GW, more than four times the cost of CCGT capacity.
They’re expensive to maintain, which is not surprising since offshore windfarms have all their many generators mounted at the top of 200-metre tall masts far away from land.
Estimates of maintenance costs are as high as £200m per GW installed, per annum.
The nominal cost of offshore wind generation is £170/MWh – noticeably higher than that for CCGTs, even in these dire times of high gas prices.
The other factor to bear in mind is that not only is wind capacity extremely expensive to build, wind farms do not deliver anything like their rated capacity over time.
This is bad news for the customer, because the higher the capacity factor – that is, the higher the percentage of the rated capacity the powerplant actually delivers over time – the cheaper the energy.
In 2022 the UK’s onshore and offshore windfarms operated with a capacity factor of 33 per cent.
In 2021 it was only 29 per cent.
It gets worse.
Like most other renewable generation technologies, wind power is unpredictably intermittent and highly variable.
Also, since wind turbines are not synchronously connected to the grid, they provide no “grid inertia” – more on that shortly.
Wind turbines cannot be asked to deliver energy when it is required, and their output changes rapidly.
These failings must be mitigated and costed, and users have to pay for these costs on top of the price of the electricity.
In 2021 the UK annual grid balancing costs reached £4.19 billion, £150 per household.
For context, back in 1995 when we didn’t have much wind power the balancing cost for the grid was a mere £250 million per annum.
A large, and growing, contribution to these costs is constraint management, as when a wind farm producing electricity which isn’t wanted – perhaps when it is windy in the middle of the night – is paid not to put that electricity into the grid.
The problems and costs don’t stop there.
Our transmission grid system was originally designed to link generation centres close to sources of fuel (coal, gas) and load centres such as cities.
Now our generation sites are moving further away from load centres.
Our grid transmission system has to be expanded to connect the new renewable generators, which is bad enough when they are on a remote hilltop and worse still when they are out at sea.
The National Grid estimates that on current plans this work will cost £46 billion – £1,533 per household – to 2030.
Then there’s grid inertia.
The British grid is termed an island grid, which means that we are solely responsible for controlling the grid frequency between tight limits so that things plugged into the grid will work as expected.
Frequency control becomes easier as the inertia of the grid system increases.
Grid system inertia is a key measure of how resilient the system is in response to transient changes.
Inertia is the sum of the energy stored within the rotating mass of the machines (generators and motors) connected directly to the system.
Low system inertia increases the risk of rapid system changes, which may then lead to disconnection of load or generation and then system instability.
Apart from tree-burning biomass stations and hydro generation, renewables plants bring no inertia to the grid: as the proportion of renewables rises, system inertia falls and the risk of major problems such as blackouts increases.
We have attempted to reduce the issue of intermittency by expanding our connections to the European electricity grid – the hope being that the wind will be blowing somewhere else even if it is not blowing here – but we’re still exposed to periods when wind generation across the whole of Europe falls near to nothing.
And these connections do not help with inertia and stability either because few of the connections to the continent are synchronous connections.
In 1995 the problem of grid frequency stability required provision of rapidly responding generators capable of changing their combined output at a rate of 0.13 GW per second in order to deal with fluctuations.
With the arrival of so much unpredictable wind power, that figure has now increased almost tenfold to 1.15 GW per second!
Extra services like very rapid response gas generators, required in order to make it possible to connect renewables to the grid, add between £30/MWh and £50/MWh to renewables’ cost.
Thus the true cost to the customer of offshore wind generators is actually between £200/MWh and £220/MWh, much more than CCGTs even in these times of ruinously high gas prices.
Phasing out CCGT production will therefore increase domestic electricity prices painfully.
But it seems that CCGTs will be phased out much sooner than planned.
The government has proposed an expansion to 60 GW of offshore wind by 2030 (capital expenditure £122 billion) and solar to 70 GW by 2035 (capital expenditure to 2030 £30 billion).
This is extremely unwise: we still have no way of storing electricity at scale and the planned transitions of home heating and transport to electrical power are progressing weakly and may yet stall completely.
Creating such a large solar generation fleet raises the nightmare scenario of early summer mornings, with little demand and the vast majority of generation being solar with zero inertia: massive grid collapses would be all but a certainty.
Vast amounts of energy will be generated only to be expensively constrained off and probably wasted, and the scenario of unmet demand – with attendant blackouts – will become unavoidable.
The UK grid is simply not able to cope with the proposed amounts of renewables.
And we simply cannot afford all this.
If we add the costs of an even more extended National Grid, this programme of wind and solar generation expansion will cost £232 billion – more than £8,000 per household this decade – all to be paid for by the suffering energy user.
It should be emphasised that these figures do not include the costs of the huge energy storage industry which will also be necessary, whatever that may turn out to be: hydrogen or ammonia or something even more dangerous and expensive.
Heat pumps and switching to electric vehicles could lift total costs above £1 trillion.
Truly, Americans should look at the British renewables disaster and give thanks that today they have hardly any offshore wind.
And they might, looking at the UK, recoil with horror from the plans of the Biden administration: especially as most US offshore wind will need to be floating offshore wind rather than built on the seabed, and so even more expensive.
Dr Capell Aris PhD has spent his career in the electricity generation sector. He is a former Fellow of the Institute of Engineering and Technology
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/time-t ... ent-815874
Paul Plante, NYSPE says:
And what an arrogant title that is that this Jeanne Fox claims for herself as a “climate crisis fighter,” which makes one wonder what she has armed herself with to fight the climate crisis, whether an AR-15 modified to fire on full automatic, or “rock and roll” as we VEET NAM grunts termed it, or is she armed with something more lethal like a Stinger missile.
But my goodness, enough about her, since this is about windmills, as opposed to how a real “climate crisis fighter” like Jeanne Fox actually goes about fighting the so-called “climate crisis,” and that brings us back to the real world the majority of us who are not “climate crisis fighters” like Jeanne Fox live in, which takes us to an article from the Brit publication The Telegraph titled “Britain’s green energy disaster should be an awful warning to Americans” by Capell Aris on 11 June 2023, where we have as follows on the subject of windmills, to wit:
Last year, the Biden administration set an ambitious new goal for the USA: to deploy 30 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind capacity by the year 2030, increasing US offshore capacity more than seven hundred times over.
end quote
And as we who live in the real world, as opposed to the fantasy world Joe Biden and his windmill crowd spend their time in, know, that should be the clueless, short-sighted, shallow-thinking Biden administration has set an ambitious new goal for the USA: to deploy 30 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind capacity by the year 2030, increasing US offshore capacity more than seven hundred times over, which takes us back to the reality “climate crisis fighters” like Jeanne Fox are totally unaware of in their delusionl state, to wit:
The UK already has 15 GW of offshore wind, more than 300 times as much as the USA: and our experience should be a terrible warning to Americans.
end quote
But it won’t be, because we are stupid and we are terrified that unless Joe Biden can save us with all his windmills, we are going to die in twelve or less years from global warming, which is going to kill us, sure as anything, if we don’t die of something else beforehand, like getting burned to death in an exploding E-car, which again takes us back to the story, to wit:
The UK’s electricity prices are the highest since records began in 1920 and are now amongst the highest in all Europe.
One reason for this is obvious: slightly less than half our electricity comes from gas-burning Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGTs) and gas now costs £90 per megawatt-hour (MWh), nearly five times higher than normal.
In normal times they would generate electricity at a total cost of £40 per MWh.
That’s now risen to nearly £150/MWh, thanks to Vladimir Putin and his impact on the gas market.
But that’s not the whole story.
The other reason why British electricity is so expensive is because we have so much wind power: particularly, so much offshore wind power.
Bad though the current situation is, we would be an even worse state if we had built even more offshore wind, as the British government plans to.
As an example, the offshore wind farms Hornsea Two and Moray East were completed in 2022 with capital costs of £2.77 billion per GW and £2.75bn/GW, more than four times the cost of CCGT capacity.
They’re expensive to maintain, which is not surprising since offshore windfarms have all their many generators mounted at the top of 200-metre tall masts far away from land.
Estimates of maintenance costs are as high as £200m per GW installed, per annum.
The nominal cost of offshore wind generation is £170/MWh – noticeably higher than that for CCGTs, even in these dire times of high gas prices.
The other factor to bear in mind is that not only is wind capacity extremely expensive to build, wind farms do not deliver anything like their rated capacity over time.
This is bad news for the customer, because the higher the capacity factor – that is, the higher the percentage of the rated capacity the powerplant actually delivers over time – the cheaper the energy.
In 2022 the UK’s onshore and offshore windfarms operated with a capacity factor of 33 per cent.
In 2021 it was only 29 per cent.
It gets worse.
Like most other renewable generation technologies, wind power is unpredictably intermittent and highly variable.
Also, since wind turbines are not synchronously connected to the grid, they provide no “grid inertia” – more on that shortly.
Wind turbines cannot be asked to deliver energy when it is required, and their output changes rapidly.
These failings must be mitigated and costed, and users have to pay for these costs on top of the price of the electricity.
In 2021 the UK annual grid balancing costs reached £4.19 billion, £150 per household.
For context, back in 1995 when we didn’t have much wind power the balancing cost for the grid was a mere £250 million per annum.
A large, and growing, contribution to these costs is constraint management, as when a wind farm producing electricity which isn’t wanted – perhaps when it is windy in the middle of the night – is paid not to put that electricity into the grid.
The problems and costs don’t stop there.
Our transmission grid system was originally designed to link generation centres close to sources of fuel (coal, gas) and load centres such as cities.
Now our generation sites are moving further away from load centres.
Our grid transmission system has to be expanded to connect the new renewable generators, which is bad enough when they are on a remote hilltop and worse still when they are out at sea.
The National Grid estimates that on current plans this work will cost £46 billion – £1,533 per household – to 2030.
Then there’s grid inertia.
The British grid is termed an island grid, which means that we are solely responsible for controlling the grid frequency between tight limits so that things plugged into the grid will work as expected.
Frequency control becomes easier as the inertia of the grid system increases.
Grid system inertia is a key measure of how resilient the system is in response to transient changes.
Inertia is the sum of the energy stored within the rotating mass of the machines (generators and motors) connected directly to the system.
Low system inertia increases the risk of rapid system changes, which may then lead to disconnection of load or generation and then system instability.
Apart from tree-burning biomass stations and hydro generation, renewables plants bring no inertia to the grid: as the proportion of renewables rises, system inertia falls and the risk of major problems such as blackouts increases.
We have attempted to reduce the issue of intermittency by expanding our connections to the European electricity grid – the hope being that the wind will be blowing somewhere else even if it is not blowing here – but we’re still exposed to periods when wind generation across the whole of Europe falls near to nothing.
And these connections do not help with inertia and stability either because few of the connections to the continent are synchronous connections.
In 1995 the problem of grid frequency stability required provision of rapidly responding generators capable of changing their combined output at a rate of 0.13 GW per second in order to deal with fluctuations.
With the arrival of so much unpredictable wind power, that figure has now increased almost tenfold to 1.15 GW per second!
Extra services like very rapid response gas generators, required in order to make it possible to connect renewables to the grid, add between £30/MWh and £50/MWh to renewables’ cost.
Thus the true cost to the customer of offshore wind generators is actually between £200/MWh and £220/MWh, much more than CCGTs even in these times of ruinously high gas prices.
Phasing out CCGT production will therefore increase domestic electricity prices painfully.
But it seems that CCGTs will be phased out much sooner than planned.
The government has proposed an expansion to 60 GW of offshore wind by 2030 (capital expenditure £122 billion) and solar to 70 GW by 2035 (capital expenditure to 2030 £30 billion).
This is extremely unwise: we still have no way of storing electricity at scale and the planned transitions of home heating and transport to electrical power are progressing weakly and may yet stall completely.
Creating such a large solar generation fleet raises the nightmare scenario of early summer mornings, with little demand and the vast majority of generation being solar with zero inertia: massive grid collapses would be all but a certainty.
Vast amounts of energy will be generated only to be expensively constrained off and probably wasted, and the scenario of unmet demand – with attendant blackouts – will become unavoidable.
The UK grid is simply not able to cope with the proposed amounts of renewables.
And we simply cannot afford all this.
If we add the costs of an even more extended National Grid, this programme of wind and solar generation expansion will cost £232 billion – more than £8,000 per household this decade – all to be paid for by the suffering energy user.
It should be emphasised that these figures do not include the costs of the huge energy storage industry which will also be necessary, whatever that may turn out to be: hydrogen or ammonia or something even more dangerous and expensive.
Heat pumps and switching to electric vehicles could lift total costs above £1 trillion.
Truly, Americans should look at the British renewables disaster and give thanks that today they have hardly any offshore wind.
And they might, looking at the UK, recoil with horror from the plans of the Biden administration: especially as most US offshore wind will need to be floating offshore wind rather than built on the seabed, and so even more expensive.
Dr Capell Aris PhD has spent his career in the electricity generation sector. He is a former Fellow of the Institute of Engineering and Technology
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/time-t ... ent-815874
Re: WINDMILLS AND SOLAR FARMS
CNBC
"Wind turbine troubles have sent one stock tumbling. There are fears it could be a much wider issue"
Story by Elliot Smith
3 JULY 2023
Siemens Energy stock plunged by around 37% on June 23, while other wind companies also saw shares retreat as investors worried that the problems at Gamesa might be a symptom of a wider issue for the industry.
"We have been aware for some time that turbine failure rates across the industry can — and should — be more widely understood," Evgenia Golysheva, vice president of strategy and marketing at ONYX Insight, told CNBC.
Industry body WindEurope denied that industry-wide technical failures could be on the horizon, insisting that "the problems at Siemens Gamesa are limited to Siemens Gamesa."
Costly failures at wind turbine manufacturer Siemens Gamesa last month sent shares of parent company Siemens Energy tumbling, and analysts are concerned about wider teething problems across the industry.
The German energy giant scrapped its profit guidance in late June, citing a "substantial increase in failure rates of wind turbine components" at its wind division Siemens Gamesa.
Siemens Energy CEO Christian Bruch told journalists on a call Friday that "too much had been swept under the carpet" at Siemens Gamesa and that the quality issues were "more severe than [he] thought possible."
Siemens Energy stock plunged by around 37% on June 23, while other wind companies also saw shares retreat as investors worried that the problems at Gamesa might be a symptom of a wider issue for the industry.
Nicholas Green, head of EU capital goods and industrial technology at AllianceBernstein, told CNBC that the pace of expansion, and the fact that many components of larger turbines haven't actually been in use for very long, means there could be inherent risks throughout the sector.
"We have to acknowledge that putting brand new machinery — whether it's on-shore or even more difficult off-shore wind farms — and the pace of change in that machinery has put us into slightly uncharted territory," he said.
"Although it's hard to tell at the moment, my best guess is that this probably actually is an industry-wide issue."
"It wasn't that Siemens Gamesa is a bad operator as such, it's that actually some of the normal protocols and time in use, operational data in use, is relatively limited."
Siemens Gamesa's board is now due to conduct an "extended technical review" into the issue, which is expected to incur costs in excess of 1 billion euros ($1.09 billion).
The company's shares have recouped some losses, but remain down over 33% in the last month.
A tough two years
The wind industry has expanded rapidly over the past two decades, lowering costs to rival — and sometimes undercut — those of fossil fuels, while boosting efficiency with ever-bigger turbines and reducing reliance on state subsidies.
"These cost reductions have been achieved with innovations in turbine technology and by pushing the boundaries of engineering," Christoph Zipf, spokesman for industry body WindEurope, told CNBC via email.
He said that 20 years ago, a typical wind turbine would have 1 million watts of capacity; today, European original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs, are testing 15 MW turbines.
"This means that turbines have become bigger as well, posing challenges to components (quality, materials, longevity)."
"The introduction of competitive auctions has also been a driving factor in this cost reduction," Zipf added.
The Statistical Review of World Energy report published last week revealed that wind and solar power accounted for 12% of the world's power generation last year, with wind power output increasing by 13.5%.
The industry was hit hard by the Covid-19 pandemic, as resulting lockdowns depressed industrial activity and reduced global energy demand.
The ensuing supply chain problems then hampered OEMs.
These manufacturers have since endured a further shock from soaring inflation and input costs as Russia's invasion of Ukraine disrupted markets and aggravated supply chain disruptions.
WindEurope estimates that the rise in commodity prices has increased the price of wind turbines by up to 40% over the last two years.
"OEMs were sourcing some material from Russia (mostly nickel) and Ukraine (mostly steel)."
"The price of both skyrocketed after the invasion."
"This comes on top of the challenging inflationary environment all European businesses are operating in (i.e. rising electricity prices, etc.)," Zipf explained.
"A main problem for the OEMs is that not all countries had indexed their renewables auctions."
"Consequently wind turbine orders were not necessarily indexed to inflation."
"The time between the order intake and the commissioning of a wind turbine can take up to 18 months (especially when supply of materials is short)."
However, Zipf denied that industry-wide technical failures could be on the horizon, insisting that "the problems at Siemens Gamesa are limited to Siemens Gamesa."
"Big turbine failures are extremely rare given the number of turbines installed in Europe already."
"However, the competition in the sector is pushing OEMs to come up with bigger and better turbines at a fast rate, may be faster than in other sectors," he said.
He also challenged the notion that the industry has entered "uncharted territory," arguing that the changes in turbine technology have been "incremental and evolutionary."
"Naturally every new turbine model comes with new challenges, requires rigorous testing and certification."
"But the European wind industry has overcome all of these challenges and maintained its reputation for delivering highly reliable high-quality turbines," Zipf said.
Facts and figures
According to ONYX Insight, which monitors wind turbines and tracks over 14,000 across 30 countries, most turbines are designed and certified for 20 years but contain components that will fail during that time due to a "compromise between the cost of the system and reliability."
"We have been aware for some time that turbine failure rates across the industry can — and should — be more widely understood, given the scale of their potential impact on the overall profitability of projects," Evgenia Golysheva, vice president of strategy and marketing at ONYX, told CNBC.
"It's not that they are made badly, but we now have a compromise between the cost of energy and targeted reliability."
"Everyone who builds, finances and operates wind turbines needs to have a realistic picture of how many failures to expect."
In turbines built in 2023, more than 40% of gearboxes will need to be replaced after 20 years of project life, according to ONYX, along with over 20% of main bearings and more than 5% of blades.
Across the wind industry, around 65% of operations and maintenance costs are unplanned, according to ONYX.
It projects that major corrective spending will rise to $4 billion by 2029.
"The growth of wind installations has been unprecedented, and the industry has had to scale up very quickly with little time to digest it."
"It's not a capacity issue, and it's not new, but it is good that OEMS (who are under pressure from supply chain and from inflation) are bringing this conversation into the public domain," Golysheva explained.
"It's a conversation that is overdue, because the underlying issues aren't going away."
"For example, wind turbine rotors are getting bigger, the turbines are getting bigger, and the development cycles are short, so it's crucial to have digital and other diagnostic tools to be able to deal with reliability issues."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... 5b08&ei=51
"Wind turbine troubles have sent one stock tumbling. There are fears it could be a much wider issue"
Story by Elliot Smith
3 JULY 2023
Siemens Energy stock plunged by around 37% on June 23, while other wind companies also saw shares retreat as investors worried that the problems at Gamesa might be a symptom of a wider issue for the industry.
"We have been aware for some time that turbine failure rates across the industry can — and should — be more widely understood," Evgenia Golysheva, vice president of strategy and marketing at ONYX Insight, told CNBC.
Industry body WindEurope denied that industry-wide technical failures could be on the horizon, insisting that "the problems at Siemens Gamesa are limited to Siemens Gamesa."
Costly failures at wind turbine manufacturer Siemens Gamesa last month sent shares of parent company Siemens Energy tumbling, and analysts are concerned about wider teething problems across the industry.
The German energy giant scrapped its profit guidance in late June, citing a "substantial increase in failure rates of wind turbine components" at its wind division Siemens Gamesa.
Siemens Energy CEO Christian Bruch told journalists on a call Friday that "too much had been swept under the carpet" at Siemens Gamesa and that the quality issues were "more severe than [he] thought possible."
Siemens Energy stock plunged by around 37% on June 23, while other wind companies also saw shares retreat as investors worried that the problems at Gamesa might be a symptom of a wider issue for the industry.
Nicholas Green, head of EU capital goods and industrial technology at AllianceBernstein, told CNBC that the pace of expansion, and the fact that many components of larger turbines haven't actually been in use for very long, means there could be inherent risks throughout the sector.
"We have to acknowledge that putting brand new machinery — whether it's on-shore or even more difficult off-shore wind farms — and the pace of change in that machinery has put us into slightly uncharted territory," he said.
"Although it's hard to tell at the moment, my best guess is that this probably actually is an industry-wide issue."
"It wasn't that Siemens Gamesa is a bad operator as such, it's that actually some of the normal protocols and time in use, operational data in use, is relatively limited."
Siemens Gamesa's board is now due to conduct an "extended technical review" into the issue, which is expected to incur costs in excess of 1 billion euros ($1.09 billion).
The company's shares have recouped some losses, but remain down over 33% in the last month.
A tough two years
The wind industry has expanded rapidly over the past two decades, lowering costs to rival — and sometimes undercut — those of fossil fuels, while boosting efficiency with ever-bigger turbines and reducing reliance on state subsidies.
"These cost reductions have been achieved with innovations in turbine technology and by pushing the boundaries of engineering," Christoph Zipf, spokesman for industry body WindEurope, told CNBC via email.
He said that 20 years ago, a typical wind turbine would have 1 million watts of capacity; today, European original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs, are testing 15 MW turbines.
"This means that turbines have become bigger as well, posing challenges to components (quality, materials, longevity)."
"The introduction of competitive auctions has also been a driving factor in this cost reduction," Zipf added.
The Statistical Review of World Energy report published last week revealed that wind and solar power accounted for 12% of the world's power generation last year, with wind power output increasing by 13.5%.
The industry was hit hard by the Covid-19 pandemic, as resulting lockdowns depressed industrial activity and reduced global energy demand.
The ensuing supply chain problems then hampered OEMs.
These manufacturers have since endured a further shock from soaring inflation and input costs as Russia's invasion of Ukraine disrupted markets and aggravated supply chain disruptions.
WindEurope estimates that the rise in commodity prices has increased the price of wind turbines by up to 40% over the last two years.
"OEMs were sourcing some material from Russia (mostly nickel) and Ukraine (mostly steel)."
"The price of both skyrocketed after the invasion."
"This comes on top of the challenging inflationary environment all European businesses are operating in (i.e. rising electricity prices, etc.)," Zipf explained.
"A main problem for the OEMs is that not all countries had indexed their renewables auctions."
"Consequently wind turbine orders were not necessarily indexed to inflation."
"The time between the order intake and the commissioning of a wind turbine can take up to 18 months (especially when supply of materials is short)."
However, Zipf denied that industry-wide technical failures could be on the horizon, insisting that "the problems at Siemens Gamesa are limited to Siemens Gamesa."
"Big turbine failures are extremely rare given the number of turbines installed in Europe already."
"However, the competition in the sector is pushing OEMs to come up with bigger and better turbines at a fast rate, may be faster than in other sectors," he said.
He also challenged the notion that the industry has entered "uncharted territory," arguing that the changes in turbine technology have been "incremental and evolutionary."
"Naturally every new turbine model comes with new challenges, requires rigorous testing and certification."
"But the European wind industry has overcome all of these challenges and maintained its reputation for delivering highly reliable high-quality turbines," Zipf said.
Facts and figures
According to ONYX Insight, which monitors wind turbines and tracks over 14,000 across 30 countries, most turbines are designed and certified for 20 years but contain components that will fail during that time due to a "compromise between the cost of the system and reliability."
"We have been aware for some time that turbine failure rates across the industry can — and should — be more widely understood, given the scale of their potential impact on the overall profitability of projects," Evgenia Golysheva, vice president of strategy and marketing at ONYX, told CNBC.
"It's not that they are made badly, but we now have a compromise between the cost of energy and targeted reliability."
"Everyone who builds, finances and operates wind turbines needs to have a realistic picture of how many failures to expect."
In turbines built in 2023, more than 40% of gearboxes will need to be replaced after 20 years of project life, according to ONYX, along with over 20% of main bearings and more than 5% of blades.
Across the wind industry, around 65% of operations and maintenance costs are unplanned, according to ONYX.
It projects that major corrective spending will rise to $4 billion by 2029.
"The growth of wind installations has been unprecedented, and the industry has had to scale up very quickly with little time to digest it."
"It's not a capacity issue, and it's not new, but it is good that OEMS (who are under pressure from supply chain and from inflation) are bringing this conversation into the public domain," Golysheva explained.
"It's a conversation that is overdue, because the underlying issues aren't going away."
"For example, wind turbine rotors are getting bigger, the turbines are getting bigger, and the development cycles are short, so it's crucial to have digital and other diagnostic tools to be able to deal with reliability issues."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... 5b08&ei=51
Re: WINDMILLS AND SOLAR FARMS
The Washington Examiner
"The latest Biden energy crisis"
Story by Matthew Kandrach
3 JULY 2023
When it comes to the nation’s supply of energy, the United States has an unfortunate tendency of stumbling from one crisis to another.
Just as we turn the corner on energy-driven inflation and the shock of a global energy crisis, there is a new crisis now on the horizon: the rapidly eroding reliability of the nation’s supply of electricity.
The situation is increasingly dire and made so by a spectacular failure of policy.
In one congressional hearing after another, the nation’s energy regulators, grid operators, and utilities have warned that we’re bungling the energy transition.
U.S. electricity demand is on the verge of skyrocketing, driven by electrification, as in the rapid uptake of electric vehicles and the stunning growth of data centers and artificial intelligence.
Just as demand is beginning to soar, the Environmental Protection Agency and a host of state clean energy mandates are forcing traditional sources of power — namely coal and natural gas plants — off the grid.
Unfortunately, replacement renewable energy capacity and its enabling infrastructure, such as high-voltage interstate transmission lines — aren’t materializing nearly fast enough to bridge the gap between what’s needed and what’s currently available.
A theoretical mismatch between supply and demand is now turning into an on-the-ground crisis from one coast to the other.
Potential supply shortfalls during periods of peak demand — think scorching heat or bitter cold — is a new reality for most of the country.
This summer, for example, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, the regulator overseeing the reliability of the nation’s power supply, has warned that two-thirds of the nation is at high risk of outages should we see extended heat waves stretching across multiple states.
So singularly focused on meeting carbon reduction goals, the Biden administration is pretending the grid crisis all but doesn’t exist.
While EPA is pushing through a blitz of rules targeting fossil fuel plants that will only accelerate the loss of essential capacity, the folks tasked with keeping the lights on are begging for a rethink.
Jim Robb, president and CEO of NERC, told Congress, “We must manage the pace of the transformation [of the grid] in an orderly way, which is currently not happening.”
When asked if the generating capacity EPA’s power plant regulations are forcing into retirement can be replaced with renewables without affecting reliability, he said, “Not in the time frame we’re looking at."
"No.”
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission member Mark Christie testified that “the United States is heading for a reliability crisis.”
He added, “I do not use the term ‘crisis’ for melodrama … The core problem is this: dispatchable generating resources are retiring far too quickly and in quantities that threaten our ability to keep the lights on.”
Even FERC Chairman Willie Phillips, hand-picked by President Joe Biden, testified, “I am extremely concerned about the pace of retirements we are seeing of generators which are needed for reliability on our system.”
What’s particularly appalling is how unnecessary this crisis is.
At Biden’s direction, the EPA has hijacked the nation’s energy policy.
Congress must now step in to right the ship.
There’s an obvious off-ramp.
Instead of tearing down the generating capacity we have, which currently underpins the system, we should be adding to it.
New additions of wind and solar power should come on the shoulders of existing plants, increasing available capacity and providing an expanded reliability backstop.
Despite claims to the contrary, there is nothing easy or simple about reshaping the nation’s supply of power.
Trying to do so as electricity demand soars is a doubly difficult task.
It’s past time we stop demonizing the coal and natural gas plants that are the very backbone of reliable, affordable power and instead pump the brakes on EPA’s regulatory march.
The warnings couldn’t be clearer about the grid crisis we now face.
When — not if — the blackouts come, the culprit won’t be a heat wave, bitter cold, or a technological glitch.
It will be the Biden administration’s unwillingness to pivot from a grossly irresponsible and dangerous agenda.
Matthew Kandrach is president of CASE, Consumer Action for a Strong Economy, a free-market-oriented consumer advocacy organization.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... 6436&ei=31
"The latest Biden energy crisis"
Story by Matthew Kandrach
3 JULY 2023
When it comes to the nation’s supply of energy, the United States has an unfortunate tendency of stumbling from one crisis to another.
Just as we turn the corner on energy-driven inflation and the shock of a global energy crisis, there is a new crisis now on the horizon: the rapidly eroding reliability of the nation’s supply of electricity.
The situation is increasingly dire and made so by a spectacular failure of policy.
In one congressional hearing after another, the nation’s energy regulators, grid operators, and utilities have warned that we’re bungling the energy transition.
U.S. electricity demand is on the verge of skyrocketing, driven by electrification, as in the rapid uptake of electric vehicles and the stunning growth of data centers and artificial intelligence.
Just as demand is beginning to soar, the Environmental Protection Agency and a host of state clean energy mandates are forcing traditional sources of power — namely coal and natural gas plants — off the grid.
Unfortunately, replacement renewable energy capacity and its enabling infrastructure, such as high-voltage interstate transmission lines — aren’t materializing nearly fast enough to bridge the gap between what’s needed and what’s currently available.
A theoretical mismatch between supply and demand is now turning into an on-the-ground crisis from one coast to the other.
Potential supply shortfalls during periods of peak demand — think scorching heat or bitter cold — is a new reality for most of the country.
This summer, for example, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, the regulator overseeing the reliability of the nation’s power supply, has warned that two-thirds of the nation is at high risk of outages should we see extended heat waves stretching across multiple states.
So singularly focused on meeting carbon reduction goals, the Biden administration is pretending the grid crisis all but doesn’t exist.
While EPA is pushing through a blitz of rules targeting fossil fuel plants that will only accelerate the loss of essential capacity, the folks tasked with keeping the lights on are begging for a rethink.
Jim Robb, president and CEO of NERC, told Congress, “We must manage the pace of the transformation [of the grid] in an orderly way, which is currently not happening.”
When asked if the generating capacity EPA’s power plant regulations are forcing into retirement can be replaced with renewables without affecting reliability, he said, “Not in the time frame we’re looking at."
"No.”
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission member Mark Christie testified that “the United States is heading for a reliability crisis.”
He added, “I do not use the term ‘crisis’ for melodrama … The core problem is this: dispatchable generating resources are retiring far too quickly and in quantities that threaten our ability to keep the lights on.”
Even FERC Chairman Willie Phillips, hand-picked by President Joe Biden, testified, “I am extremely concerned about the pace of retirements we are seeing of generators which are needed for reliability on our system.”
What’s particularly appalling is how unnecessary this crisis is.
At Biden’s direction, the EPA has hijacked the nation’s energy policy.
Congress must now step in to right the ship.
There’s an obvious off-ramp.
Instead of tearing down the generating capacity we have, which currently underpins the system, we should be adding to it.
New additions of wind and solar power should come on the shoulders of existing plants, increasing available capacity and providing an expanded reliability backstop.
Despite claims to the contrary, there is nothing easy or simple about reshaping the nation’s supply of power.
Trying to do so as electricity demand soars is a doubly difficult task.
It’s past time we stop demonizing the coal and natural gas plants that are the very backbone of reliable, affordable power and instead pump the brakes on EPA’s regulatory march.
The warnings couldn’t be clearer about the grid crisis we now face.
When — not if — the blackouts come, the culprit won’t be a heat wave, bitter cold, or a technological glitch.
It will be the Biden administration’s unwillingness to pivot from a grossly irresponsible and dangerous agenda.
Matthew Kandrach is president of CASE, Consumer Action for a Strong Economy, a free-market-oriented consumer advocacy organization.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... 6436&ei=31
Re: WINDMILLS AND SOLAR FARMS
Benzinga
"Tesla's Solar Factory — A Billion-Dollar Misstep For New York: WSJ"
Story by Benzinga Newsbot
6 JULY 2023
New York’s nearly $1 billion investment in Elon Musk‘s plan for a massive solar-panel factory, once touted as the largest in the Western Hemisphere, has largely failed to deliver on its promises, The Wall Street Journal reports.
Unfulfilled Promises
The state-owned facility, leased to Tesla Inc. for $1 a year, was expected to produce enough solar-panel shingles to cover 1,000 roofs each week by 2020.
However, Tesla’s solar-energy unit is averaging just 21 installations a week.
The anticipated suppliers and modern manufacturing hub never materialized, and most of the solar-panel manufacturing equipment purchased by the state has been sold or scrapped.
State’s Response
Despite the shortcomings, the state has amended the terms of its subsidy 12 times over the years to accommodate Tesla.
The company reported in February that it has created 1,700 positions at the facility, enough to meet its obligations to the state and avoid a $41 million annual penalty.
Spokespersons for the former governor and the state agency overseeing the project defended the factory, citing its contributions to the local economy.
Current State of Affairs
The factory, which was supposed to be a manufacturing hub, is now largely populated by Tesla data analysts.
The high-tech factory jobs that the state intended have not materialized, and the state agency overseeing the subsidies does not track what is being produced at the factory.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/te ... 5449&ei=62
"Tesla's Solar Factory — A Billion-Dollar Misstep For New York: WSJ"
Story by Benzinga Newsbot
6 JULY 2023
New York’s nearly $1 billion investment in Elon Musk‘s plan for a massive solar-panel factory, once touted as the largest in the Western Hemisphere, has largely failed to deliver on its promises, The Wall Street Journal reports.
Unfulfilled Promises
The state-owned facility, leased to Tesla Inc. for $1 a year, was expected to produce enough solar-panel shingles to cover 1,000 roofs each week by 2020.
However, Tesla’s solar-energy unit is averaging just 21 installations a week.
The anticipated suppliers and modern manufacturing hub never materialized, and most of the solar-panel manufacturing equipment purchased by the state has been sold or scrapped.
State’s Response
Despite the shortcomings, the state has amended the terms of its subsidy 12 times over the years to accommodate Tesla.
The company reported in February that it has created 1,700 positions at the facility, enough to meet its obligations to the state and avoid a $41 million annual penalty.
Spokespersons for the former governor and the state agency overseeing the project defended the factory, citing its contributions to the local economy.
Current State of Affairs
The factory, which was supposed to be a manufacturing hub, is now largely populated by Tesla data analysts.
The high-tech factory jobs that the state intended have not materialized, and the state agency overseeing the subsidies does not track what is being produced at the factory.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/te ... 5449&ei=62