THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR SEPTEMBER 9, 2023 AT 10:10 PM
Paul R Plante, NYSPE says:
So, people, let us cut to the chase here and go back to July 20, 2023, and Joe Biden’s claim in his “FACT SHEET: Bidenomics is Boosting Clean Energy Manufacturing for Offshore Wind and Creating Good-Paying American Union Jobs,” that the Biden-Harris Administration has jumpstarted an American offshore wind industry that will make the power grid more reliable and lower energy costs, and do some fact-checking to see if any of that BLATANT POLITICAL PROPAGANDA is in any way true.
First of all, what about the claim that the Biden-Harris Administration has jumpstarted an American offshore wind industry that will make the power grid more reliable?
HOW?
How is the Biden-Harris Administration going to make the power grid more reliable with a bunch of off-shore windmills, when there is NOTHING now wrong with our existing power grid, which already is quite reliable?
But we are talking BLATANT POLITICAL PROPAGANDA here, which is to say, a LITANY OF LIES, so this is what we have to expect coming to us from the Biden-Harris Administration, which thinks we are all stupid and as dumb as a box of rocks, which is a gross insult to the intelligence of the American people, or those of us who read the Cape Charles Mirror, anyway.
And while we are on that subject of the specious claim of the Biden-Harris Administration making the power grid more reliable with a bunch of windmills, and since a picture is worth a thousand words, take a moment and watch these videos of windmills either falling over, or catching fire, or smacking eagles out of the sky or flinging their blades, and then ask yourself this important question: HOW DOES ANY OF THAT SERVE TO MAKE OUR POWER GRID RELIABLE:
Wind Turbine in Germany Snaps and Collapses
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdlTV-SLjRc
Crowell, Texas, July 22, 2022: Wind turbine catches fire after being struck by lightning
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubdMNNbnivA
Dramatic footage shows Hull wind turbine on fire
The Independent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSAFoN8UyF4
Wind turbine catches fire off British coast prompting evacuations | USA TODAY
16 AUGUST 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SADmTsILmQ
This has some spectacular footage of a windmill literally disintegrating and spewing shrapnel, as well as an eagle strike and a windmill falling over: 5 Wind Turbines Which Failed (Environmentally Friendly?) – Engineering World
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVHzfUWul2Y
Piece of wind turbine flies off at Boston’s Deer Island – WWLP-22News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKnatQqk9ec
And as you watch that black smoke pouring off those burning windmills, keeping in mind that train wreck out in East Palestine, Ohio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsw4ZKkLQp8 and the total lack of concern of the Biden-Harris Administration over those toxic fumes going into the environment, ask yourself how those burning windmills spewing black smoke comports with the claim of the Biden-Harris Administration that their offshore wind industry will reduce dangerous climate pollution.
And before getting into the rising cost of power generated by Joe Biden’s windmills, let’s pause here for station identification, and then we will be right back with a Washington Examiner titled “The latest Biden energy crisis” by Matthew Kandrach on 3 July 2023, which article sets the stage for what is to follow on soaring electricity costs to we, the American people who are about to get hosed real good as a result of Joe Biden’s INSANE GREEN DREAM, to wit:
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.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/op-ed- ... ent-844915
WINDMILLS AND SOLAR FARMS
Re: WINDMILLS AND SOLAR FARMS
The Telegraph
"Electricity from wind isn’t cheap – and it never will be"
Story by Matt Ridley
10 SEPTEMBER 2023
The MPs who have forced Rishi Sunak into a U-turn on onshore wind power love to repeat the favourite slogan of the wind industry: “wind is cheap”.
“Cheap, clean, secure,” says Sir Alok Sharma.
“Cheap,” cheeps Ed Miliband.
It conceals the truth.
Electricity from wind is not cheap and never will be.
The latest auction of rights to build offshore wind farms failed to attract any bids, despite offering higher subsidised prices.
That alone indicates that wind is not cheap or getting cheaper.
But the real reason for the lack of interest in the auction is that, for the first time, bidders are not free to walk away from their bids when it suits them.
In the past, they could put in low offers, boast about them being cheap, then take the higher market price later.
The Government has at last called their bluff, so they are having to admit that electricity prices need to be higher to make wind farms pay.
The cost of subsidising wind is vast.
Then add the cost of getting the power from remote wind farms to where people live.
And the cost of balancing the grid and backing wind up with gas plants for the times when the wind drops.
And the cost of paying wind farms to reduce output on windy days when the grid can’t take it.
If wind power is so cheap, how come energy bills have risen in step with the amount of installed wind power?
Says the energy expert John Constable: “We had a huge amount of wind... and it not only did absolutely nothing to protect against the recent gas crisis: it actually made it worse, because the UK’s security of supply now hangs by the single thread of gas, as the sole thermodynamically competent fuel in the system, coal being near absent and nuclear a small fraction.”
And yet the wind industry is complaining that today’s high electricity prices are not high enough, and without more subsidies they will stop building: “The race to the bottom on strike prices incentivised by the current auction process is at odds with the reality of project costs and investment needs, jeopardising deployment targets,” said RenewableUK recently.
How does that square with claims it is cheap?
The wind industry’s capital costs were very high before the Ukraine crisis, and now, like everybody else’s, are shooting up still further: the cost of steel, concrete, carbon fibre, copper and all the other ingredients of a wind turbine have risen sharply.
Operating costs are rising.
Inevitably, the energy generated by wind is expensive.
And, as Constable suggests, wind itself is thermodynamically inferior.
Consequently, it takes a huge machine – the building of which requires a lot of energy – to extract a small amount of electricity from randomly fluctuating, low-density wind, which bloweth as and when it listeth.
By contrast, in a nuclear plant, it takes a small machine to produce a flood of energy from a dense, “thermodynamically competent” energy source, and on demand.
The man and woman in the street understand this intuitively.
Politicians not at all.
Here is a simple analogy to help them.
Electricity, like coffee, is only any good if you can buy it when you feel like it.
If I set up a chain of coffee shops and sell coffee no better than Costa’s, but I make hundreds of excess cups one morning and none at all the next, from a facility that towers hundreds of feet into the sky, ruins views, slaughters birdlife and requires government subsidies, I suspect the customer would prefer Costa.
But in our benighted electricity market, you are forced to buy my coffee except on the days when I produce none, when you are allowed to go to Costa – which has put its prices up to compensate for my existence.
So, no, wind power is not cheap or secure.
Nor is it clean.
The mining of minerals and pouring of concrete that is required for a wind farm have a huge pollution impact and a massive carbon footprint.
Voters know wind farms are a futile gesture and they will now punish the Tories accordingly.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... 48a3&ei=23
"Electricity from wind isn’t cheap – and it never will be"
Story by Matt Ridley
10 SEPTEMBER 2023
The MPs who have forced Rishi Sunak into a U-turn on onshore wind power love to repeat the favourite slogan of the wind industry: “wind is cheap”.
“Cheap, clean, secure,” says Sir Alok Sharma.
“Cheap,” cheeps Ed Miliband.
It conceals the truth.
Electricity from wind is not cheap and never will be.
The latest auction of rights to build offshore wind farms failed to attract any bids, despite offering higher subsidised prices.
That alone indicates that wind is not cheap or getting cheaper.
But the real reason for the lack of interest in the auction is that, for the first time, bidders are not free to walk away from their bids when it suits them.
In the past, they could put in low offers, boast about them being cheap, then take the higher market price later.
The Government has at last called their bluff, so they are having to admit that electricity prices need to be higher to make wind farms pay.
The cost of subsidising wind is vast.
Then add the cost of getting the power from remote wind farms to where people live.
And the cost of balancing the grid and backing wind up with gas plants for the times when the wind drops.
And the cost of paying wind farms to reduce output on windy days when the grid can’t take it.
If wind power is so cheap, how come energy bills have risen in step with the amount of installed wind power?
Says the energy expert John Constable: “We had a huge amount of wind... and it not only did absolutely nothing to protect against the recent gas crisis: it actually made it worse, because the UK’s security of supply now hangs by the single thread of gas, as the sole thermodynamically competent fuel in the system, coal being near absent and nuclear a small fraction.”
And yet the wind industry is complaining that today’s high electricity prices are not high enough, and without more subsidies they will stop building: “The race to the bottom on strike prices incentivised by the current auction process is at odds with the reality of project costs and investment needs, jeopardising deployment targets,” said RenewableUK recently.
How does that square with claims it is cheap?
The wind industry’s capital costs were very high before the Ukraine crisis, and now, like everybody else’s, are shooting up still further: the cost of steel, concrete, carbon fibre, copper and all the other ingredients of a wind turbine have risen sharply.
Operating costs are rising.
Inevitably, the energy generated by wind is expensive.
And, as Constable suggests, wind itself is thermodynamically inferior.
Consequently, it takes a huge machine – the building of which requires a lot of energy – to extract a small amount of electricity from randomly fluctuating, low-density wind, which bloweth as and when it listeth.
By contrast, in a nuclear plant, it takes a small machine to produce a flood of energy from a dense, “thermodynamically competent” energy source, and on demand.
The man and woman in the street understand this intuitively.
Politicians not at all.
Here is a simple analogy to help them.
Electricity, like coffee, is only any good if you can buy it when you feel like it.
If I set up a chain of coffee shops and sell coffee no better than Costa’s, but I make hundreds of excess cups one morning and none at all the next, from a facility that towers hundreds of feet into the sky, ruins views, slaughters birdlife and requires government subsidies, I suspect the customer would prefer Costa.
But in our benighted electricity market, you are forced to buy my coffee except on the days when I produce none, when you are allowed to go to Costa – which has put its prices up to compensate for my existence.
So, no, wind power is not cheap or secure.
Nor is it clean.
The mining of minerals and pouring of concrete that is required for a wind farm have a huge pollution impact and a massive carbon footprint.
Voters know wind farms are a futile gesture and they will now punish the Tories accordingly.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... 48a3&ei=23
Re: WINDMILLS AND SOLAR FARMS
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR SEPTEMBER 10, 2023 AT 9:16 PM
Paul R Plante, NYSPE says:
So, yes, people, we are back to 3 July 2023, this being seventeen (17) days before Joe Biden’s specious claims in his “FACT SHEET: Bidenomics is Boosting Clean Energy Manufacturing for Offshore Wind and Creating Good-Paying American Union Jobs” on July 20, 2023 that the Biden-Harris Administration has jumpstarted an American offshore wind industry that will make the power grid more reliable and lower energy costs, and the Washington Examiner story “The latest Biden energy crisis” by Matthew Kandrach where we the American people were told that when it comes to the nation’s supply of energy, the United States, i.e. Joe Biden and his pack of Democrats, has an unfortunate tendency of stumbling from one crisis to another, so that 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, namely, the rapidly eroding reliability of the nation’s supply of electricity, a situation that is increasingly dire and made so by a spectacular failure of policy by Joe Biden himself, who has deluded himself with his INSANE GREEN DREAM, which takes us back to that article for some essential background on this issue that is going to affect each and every one of us in myriad ways, to wit:
In one congressional hearing after another, the nation’s energy regulators, grid operators, and utilities have warned that we’re bungling the energy transition.
end quotes
But it is not we, the American people who are bungling anything, because we have absolutely no part in the bungling, nor any say, either.
To the contrary, that should read the Biden-Harris Administration is bungling the energy transition, because they are incompetent and haven’t a clue as to what they are doing, other than knee-jerking, which takes us back for more essential background, to wit:
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.
end quotes
For the record, those plants being forced off the grid by the bungling Biden-Harris Administration have been a reliable source of electricity for decades, which takes us back to the article, to wit:
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.
end quotes
Something to think about, anyway, and when we return after a break for station identification, it will be with a Daily Caller article titled “Companies Are Abandoning Massive Offshore Wind Projects As Prices Skyrocket” by Nick Pope on 24 July 2023, where we will encounter Joe Buden’s MYTH of reliability, to wit:
Billions of dollars in scheduled offshore wind developments in waters of the U.K. and U.S. have been paused or canceled in recent weeks, according to Bloomberg News.
Three major offshore wind-related contracts have fallen through as rising costs and economic concerns have saddled developments off the American and British coasts, according to Bloomberg.
While offshore wind proponents remain confident in the long term viability of offshore wind, the recent cancellations may be a sign of more substantial troubles for offshore wind despite strong support from the Biden administration, according to Bloomberg.
Offshore wind energy is a key pillar of the Biden administration’s massive green energy agenda, as the administration wants offshore wind to produce enough energy to power 10 million American homes by 2030.
The cancellations and turbulence are partially attributable to increasing costs for steel needed to build the giant turbines and the special ships needed for installation, according to Bloomberg.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/op-ed- ... ent-845390
Paul R Plante, NYSPE says:
So, yes, people, we are back to 3 July 2023, this being seventeen (17) days before Joe Biden’s specious claims in his “FACT SHEET: Bidenomics is Boosting Clean Energy Manufacturing for Offshore Wind and Creating Good-Paying American Union Jobs” on July 20, 2023 that the Biden-Harris Administration has jumpstarted an American offshore wind industry that will make the power grid more reliable and lower energy costs, and the Washington Examiner story “The latest Biden energy crisis” by Matthew Kandrach where we the American people were told that when it comes to the nation’s supply of energy, the United States, i.e. Joe Biden and his pack of Democrats, has an unfortunate tendency of stumbling from one crisis to another, so that 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, namely, the rapidly eroding reliability of the nation’s supply of electricity, a situation that is increasingly dire and made so by a spectacular failure of policy by Joe Biden himself, who has deluded himself with his INSANE GREEN DREAM, which takes us back to that article for some essential background on this issue that is going to affect each and every one of us in myriad ways, to wit:
In one congressional hearing after another, the nation’s energy regulators, grid operators, and utilities have warned that we’re bungling the energy transition.
end quotes
But it is not we, the American people who are bungling anything, because we have absolutely no part in the bungling, nor any say, either.
To the contrary, that should read the Biden-Harris Administration is bungling the energy transition, because they are incompetent and haven’t a clue as to what they are doing, other than knee-jerking, which takes us back for more essential background, to wit:
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.
end quotes
For the record, those plants being forced off the grid by the bungling Biden-Harris Administration have been a reliable source of electricity for decades, which takes us back to the article, to wit:
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.
end quotes
Something to think about, anyway, and when we return after a break for station identification, it will be with a Daily Caller article titled “Companies Are Abandoning Massive Offshore Wind Projects As Prices Skyrocket” by Nick Pope on 24 July 2023, where we will encounter Joe Buden’s MYTH of reliability, to wit:
Billions of dollars in scheduled offshore wind developments in waters of the U.K. and U.S. have been paused or canceled in recent weeks, according to Bloomberg News.
Three major offshore wind-related contracts have fallen through as rising costs and economic concerns have saddled developments off the American and British coasts, according to Bloomberg.
While offshore wind proponents remain confident in the long term viability of offshore wind, the recent cancellations may be a sign of more substantial troubles for offshore wind despite strong support from the Biden administration, according to Bloomberg.
Offshore wind energy is a key pillar of the Biden administration’s massive green energy agenda, as the administration wants offshore wind to produce enough energy to power 10 million American homes by 2030.
The cancellations and turbulence are partially attributable to increasing costs for steel needed to build the giant turbines and the special ships needed for installation, according to Bloomberg.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/op-ed- ... ent-845390
Re: WINDMILLS AND SOLAR FARMS
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR SEPTEMBER 11, 2023 AT 8:46 PM
Paul R Plante, NYSPE says:
Before we go back to that Daily Caller article titled “Companies Are Abandoning Massive Offshore Wind Projects As Prices Skyrocket” by Nick Pope on 24 July 2023, where we were informed that Joe Biden’s prized windmill farms were being cancelled due to increasing costs for steel needed to build the giant turbines and the special ships needed for installation, which is an indication of GROSS CORPORATE NEGLIGENCE and STUPIDITY coupled with GOVERNMENTAL STUPIDITY on the part of the Biden regime, I would like to take a moment to explain the significance of that NYSPE I include with my name.
NYSPE means that I am an engineer licensed by the state of New York to perform professional service such as consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, design or supervision of construction or operation in connection with any utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, works, or projects wherein the safeguarding of life, health and property is concerned, when such service or work requires the application of engineering principles and data.
To become licensed as a professional engineer, among other requirements, it is necessary to take and pass two eight-hour exams, and a mandatory question on the second exam that must be passed has to do with what is known as ENGINEERING ECONOMICS, which is to say, COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS regarding public projects such as Joe Biden’s windmill farms, and the reason I bring that up is because it is patently obvious that NO ATTEMPT was made by anyone to perform a cost-benefit analysis of these windmill farms, which is GROSS NEGLIGENCE by the Biden regime on steroids, given the amount of public monies being SQUANDERED here on Joe Biden’s INSANE GREEN DREAM.
For those unfamiliar with the term “cost-benefit analysis,” which list would start with Joe Biden and the corporate executives of these windmill companies, the Harvard Business School has an article on the subject titled “How to do a Cost-Benefit Analysis & why it’s important” by Tim Stobierski on 5 September 2019, where we learn as follows, to wit:
Are you unsure whether a particular decision is the best one for your business?
Are you questioning whether a proposed project will be worth the effort and resources that will go into making it a success?
The way that many businesses, organizations, and entrepreneurs answer these, and other, questions is through business analytics — specifically, by conducting a cost-benefit analysis.
A cost-benefit analysis is the process of comparing the projected or estimated costs and benefits (or opportunities) associated with a project decision to determine whether it makes sense from a business perspective.
Generally speaking, cost-benefit analysis involves tallying up all costs of a project or decision and subtracting that amount from the total projected benefits of the project or decision.
If the projected benefits outweigh the costs, you could argue that the decision is a good one to make.
If, on the other hand, the costs outweigh the benefits, then a company may want to rethink the decision or project.
There are enormous economic benefits to running these kinds of analyses before making significant organizational decisions.
By doing analyses, you can parse out critical information, such as your organization’s value chain or a project’s ROI (return on investment).
end quotes
As we are going to see, and I have been making this argument for months in here elsewhere, NO THOUGHT whatsoever was given to the costs associated with these PIE-IN-THE-SKY INSANE GREEN DREAMS of Joe Biden starting with these offshore wind farms.
So what is involved in a cost-benefit analysis, which should have been performed before this BIDEN BOONDOGGLE involving the expenditure of massive sums of public money?
For that answer, let us go back to the Harvard article and see, to wit:
STEPS OF A COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
1. Establish a Framework for Your Analysis
For your analysis to be as accurate as possible, you must first establish the framework within which you’re conducting it.
Identify the goals and objectives you’re trying to address with the proposal.
What do you need to accomplish to consider the endeavor a success?
This can help you identify and understand your costs and benefits, and will be critical in interpreting the results of your analysis.
2. Identify Your Costs and Benefits
Your next step is to sit down and compile two separate lists: One of all of the projected costs, and the other of the expected benefits of the proposed project or action.
When tallying costs, you’ll likely begin with direct costs, which include expenses directly related to the production or development of a product or service (or the implementation of a project or business decision).
Labor costs, manufacturing costs, materials costs, and inventory costs are all examples of direct costs.
But it’s also important to go beyond the obvious.
There are a few additional costs you must account for:
Indirect costs: These are typically fixed expenses, such as utilities and rent, that contribute to the overhead of conducting business.
Intangible costs: These are any current and future costs that are difficult to measure and quantify.
Opportunity costs: This refers to lost benefits, or opportunities, that arise when a business pursues one product or strategy over another.
Once those individual costs are identified, it’s equally important to understand the possible benefits of the proposed decision or project.
Some of those benefits include:
Direct: Increased revenue and sales generated from a new product
Indirect: Increased customer interest in your business or brand
Intangible: Improved employee morale
Competitive: Being a first-mover within an industry or vertical
3. Assign a Dollar Amount or Value to Each Cost and Benefit
Once you’ve compiled exhaustive lists of all costs and benefits, you must establish the appropriate monetary units by assigning a dollar amount to each one.
If you don’t give all the costs and benefits a value, then it will be difficult to compare them accurately.
4. Tally the Total Value of Benefits and Costs and Compare
Once every cost and benefit has a dollar amount next to it, you can tally up each list and compare the two.
If total benefits outnumber total costs, then there is a business case for you to proceed with the project or decision.
If total costs outnumber total benefits, then you may want to reconsider the proposal.
end quotes
And that takes us back to the Daily Caller article titled “Companies Are Abandoning Massive Offshore Wind Projects As Prices Skyrocket” by Nick Pope on 24 July 2023, where we will see that after the fact, after leaping without looking, these NEGLIGENT windmill companies are doing exactly that, reconsidering their proposals. because as a result of their gross negligence and a failure to conduct due diligence (a comprehensive appraisal of a business undertaken by a prospective buyer, especially to establish its assets and liabilities and evaluate its commercial potential) they are taking a financial bath, to wit:
Offshore wind energy is a key pillar of the Biden administration’s massive green energy agenda, as the administration wants offshore wind to produce enough energy to power 10 million American homes by 2030.
end quotes
For the record, according to the facts, there were are 141.58 million houses in the US as of last year, and on the east coast, where these wind farms are to be located, if ever built, and based on estimates taken in 2017, the East Coast states have a total population of over 118 million inhabitants, so that this region is home to more than one-third of the nation’s total population, and is also the most populated coastal region in the country.
So right there we are getting an idea of just how ill-thought out this whole BIDEN BOONDOGGLE has been from the start, because where are all those other people going to get their power from?
Going back to the article, it continues as follows:
The cancellations and turbulence are partially attributable to increasing costs for steel needed to build the giant turbines and the special ships needed for installation, according to Bloomberg.
Steadily increasing interest rates make the price of debt even riskier for companies to take out to finance their offshore wind projects, according to Bloomberg.
A subsidiary of Iberdrola SA, a Spanish renewables firm, canceled a contract that would have enabled the firm to sell energy produced by an offshore wind farm located off the Massachusetts coast, according to Bloomberg.
The firm agreed to pay nearly $50 million in fines to get out of the contract to sell offshore wind energy, asserting that inflation and rising interest rates no longer make the deal financially sensible, according to Recharge News.
Other companies involved in that particular project, Shell and OceanWind, are reportedly looking to change terms of their respective stakes in the development due to the turbulence, according to Recharge News.
Orsted, a Danish green energy company, lost its bid to generate offshore wind energy off the Rhode Island coast because costs had risen so sharply that the state’s leading utility provider determined the project to be too pricey, according to Bloomberg.
“Price inflation on turbines, cables etc (sic) have gone up sharply,” Mads Nipper, the company’s CEO, wrote in a LinkedIn post regarding the lost bid, adding that “this means that price of renewable energy regrettably must come up temporarily.”
end quotes
HUH?
WOT?
The price of renewable energy regrettably must come up?
But that can’t be, people, because on 20 July 2023, just four days earlier, Joe Biden promised us in his “FACT SHEET: Bidenomics is Boosting Clean Energy Manufacturing for Offshore Wind and Creating Good-Paying American Union Jobs” that the Biden-Harris Administration has jumpstarted an American offshore wind industry that will make the power grid more reliable and lower energy costs!
Did Joe lie to us?
Of course he did, because he never does anything else, which takes us back to the Daily Caller, to wit:
More than two times that much offshore wind power generation may also be at risk as developers seek to rework or get out of other deals that no longer make as much sense due to cost increases and other market forces, according to Bloomberg.
end quote
So what on earth is up with that, people?
Think about it while we pause for station identification and when we return, we’ll go to a Motley Fool article titled “Wind Energy Faces its First Crisis as Costs Mount” by The Daily Upside on 10 August 2023, where we will see the following and in the meantime, stay tuned:
It’s been anything but a breeze for wind.
Siemens Energy, a major German player in the wind energy industry, told investors on Monday the losses at its wind turbine division will likely climb higher than previously thought.
This comes amid broader financing turbulence in the wind industry, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.
One executive at energy company Equinor didn’t mince words talking to the WSJ: “At the moment, we are seeing the industry’s first crisis.”
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/op-ed- ... ent-845851
Paul R Plante, NYSPE says:
Before we go back to that Daily Caller article titled “Companies Are Abandoning Massive Offshore Wind Projects As Prices Skyrocket” by Nick Pope on 24 July 2023, where we were informed that Joe Biden’s prized windmill farms were being cancelled due to increasing costs for steel needed to build the giant turbines and the special ships needed for installation, which is an indication of GROSS CORPORATE NEGLIGENCE and STUPIDITY coupled with GOVERNMENTAL STUPIDITY on the part of the Biden regime, I would like to take a moment to explain the significance of that NYSPE I include with my name.
NYSPE means that I am an engineer licensed by the state of New York to perform professional service such as consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, design or supervision of construction or operation in connection with any utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, works, or projects wherein the safeguarding of life, health and property is concerned, when such service or work requires the application of engineering principles and data.
To become licensed as a professional engineer, among other requirements, it is necessary to take and pass two eight-hour exams, and a mandatory question on the second exam that must be passed has to do with what is known as ENGINEERING ECONOMICS, which is to say, COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS regarding public projects such as Joe Biden’s windmill farms, and the reason I bring that up is because it is patently obvious that NO ATTEMPT was made by anyone to perform a cost-benefit analysis of these windmill farms, which is GROSS NEGLIGENCE by the Biden regime on steroids, given the amount of public monies being SQUANDERED here on Joe Biden’s INSANE GREEN DREAM.
For those unfamiliar with the term “cost-benefit analysis,” which list would start with Joe Biden and the corporate executives of these windmill companies, the Harvard Business School has an article on the subject titled “How to do a Cost-Benefit Analysis & why it’s important” by Tim Stobierski on 5 September 2019, where we learn as follows, to wit:
Are you unsure whether a particular decision is the best one for your business?
Are you questioning whether a proposed project will be worth the effort and resources that will go into making it a success?
The way that many businesses, organizations, and entrepreneurs answer these, and other, questions is through business analytics — specifically, by conducting a cost-benefit analysis.
A cost-benefit analysis is the process of comparing the projected or estimated costs and benefits (or opportunities) associated with a project decision to determine whether it makes sense from a business perspective.
Generally speaking, cost-benefit analysis involves tallying up all costs of a project or decision and subtracting that amount from the total projected benefits of the project or decision.
If the projected benefits outweigh the costs, you could argue that the decision is a good one to make.
If, on the other hand, the costs outweigh the benefits, then a company may want to rethink the decision or project.
There are enormous economic benefits to running these kinds of analyses before making significant organizational decisions.
By doing analyses, you can parse out critical information, such as your organization’s value chain or a project’s ROI (return on investment).
end quotes
As we are going to see, and I have been making this argument for months in here elsewhere, NO THOUGHT whatsoever was given to the costs associated with these PIE-IN-THE-SKY INSANE GREEN DREAMS of Joe Biden starting with these offshore wind farms.
So what is involved in a cost-benefit analysis, which should have been performed before this BIDEN BOONDOGGLE involving the expenditure of massive sums of public money?
For that answer, let us go back to the Harvard article and see, to wit:
STEPS OF A COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
1. Establish a Framework for Your Analysis
For your analysis to be as accurate as possible, you must first establish the framework within which you’re conducting it.
Identify the goals and objectives you’re trying to address with the proposal.
What do you need to accomplish to consider the endeavor a success?
This can help you identify and understand your costs and benefits, and will be critical in interpreting the results of your analysis.
2. Identify Your Costs and Benefits
Your next step is to sit down and compile two separate lists: One of all of the projected costs, and the other of the expected benefits of the proposed project or action.
When tallying costs, you’ll likely begin with direct costs, which include expenses directly related to the production or development of a product or service (or the implementation of a project or business decision).
Labor costs, manufacturing costs, materials costs, and inventory costs are all examples of direct costs.
But it’s also important to go beyond the obvious.
There are a few additional costs you must account for:
Indirect costs: These are typically fixed expenses, such as utilities and rent, that contribute to the overhead of conducting business.
Intangible costs: These are any current and future costs that are difficult to measure and quantify.
Opportunity costs: This refers to lost benefits, or opportunities, that arise when a business pursues one product or strategy over another.
Once those individual costs are identified, it’s equally important to understand the possible benefits of the proposed decision or project.
Some of those benefits include:
Direct: Increased revenue and sales generated from a new product
Indirect: Increased customer interest in your business or brand
Intangible: Improved employee morale
Competitive: Being a first-mover within an industry or vertical
3. Assign a Dollar Amount or Value to Each Cost and Benefit
Once you’ve compiled exhaustive lists of all costs and benefits, you must establish the appropriate monetary units by assigning a dollar amount to each one.
If you don’t give all the costs and benefits a value, then it will be difficult to compare them accurately.
4. Tally the Total Value of Benefits and Costs and Compare
Once every cost and benefit has a dollar amount next to it, you can tally up each list and compare the two.
If total benefits outnumber total costs, then there is a business case for you to proceed with the project or decision.
If total costs outnumber total benefits, then you may want to reconsider the proposal.
end quotes
And that takes us back to the Daily Caller article titled “Companies Are Abandoning Massive Offshore Wind Projects As Prices Skyrocket” by Nick Pope on 24 July 2023, where we will see that after the fact, after leaping without looking, these NEGLIGENT windmill companies are doing exactly that, reconsidering their proposals. because as a result of their gross negligence and a failure to conduct due diligence (a comprehensive appraisal of a business undertaken by a prospective buyer, especially to establish its assets and liabilities and evaluate its commercial potential) they are taking a financial bath, to wit:
Offshore wind energy is a key pillar of the Biden administration’s massive green energy agenda, as the administration wants offshore wind to produce enough energy to power 10 million American homes by 2030.
end quotes
For the record, according to the facts, there were are 141.58 million houses in the US as of last year, and on the east coast, where these wind farms are to be located, if ever built, and based on estimates taken in 2017, the East Coast states have a total population of over 118 million inhabitants, so that this region is home to more than one-third of the nation’s total population, and is also the most populated coastal region in the country.
So right there we are getting an idea of just how ill-thought out this whole BIDEN BOONDOGGLE has been from the start, because where are all those other people going to get their power from?
Going back to the article, it continues as follows:
The cancellations and turbulence are partially attributable to increasing costs for steel needed to build the giant turbines and the special ships needed for installation, according to Bloomberg.
Steadily increasing interest rates make the price of debt even riskier for companies to take out to finance their offshore wind projects, according to Bloomberg.
A subsidiary of Iberdrola SA, a Spanish renewables firm, canceled a contract that would have enabled the firm to sell energy produced by an offshore wind farm located off the Massachusetts coast, according to Bloomberg.
The firm agreed to pay nearly $50 million in fines to get out of the contract to sell offshore wind energy, asserting that inflation and rising interest rates no longer make the deal financially sensible, according to Recharge News.
Other companies involved in that particular project, Shell and OceanWind, are reportedly looking to change terms of their respective stakes in the development due to the turbulence, according to Recharge News.
Orsted, a Danish green energy company, lost its bid to generate offshore wind energy off the Rhode Island coast because costs had risen so sharply that the state’s leading utility provider determined the project to be too pricey, according to Bloomberg.
“Price inflation on turbines, cables etc (sic) have gone up sharply,” Mads Nipper, the company’s CEO, wrote in a LinkedIn post regarding the lost bid, adding that “this means that price of renewable energy regrettably must come up temporarily.”
end quotes
HUH?
WOT?
The price of renewable energy regrettably must come up?
But that can’t be, people, because on 20 July 2023, just four days earlier, Joe Biden promised us in his “FACT SHEET: Bidenomics is Boosting Clean Energy Manufacturing for Offshore Wind and Creating Good-Paying American Union Jobs” that the Biden-Harris Administration has jumpstarted an American offshore wind industry that will make the power grid more reliable and lower energy costs!
Did Joe lie to us?
Of course he did, because he never does anything else, which takes us back to the Daily Caller, to wit:
More than two times that much offshore wind power generation may also be at risk as developers seek to rework or get out of other deals that no longer make as much sense due to cost increases and other market forces, according to Bloomberg.
end quote
So what on earth is up with that, people?
Think about it while we pause for station identification and when we return, we’ll go to a Motley Fool article titled “Wind Energy Faces its First Crisis as Costs Mount” by The Daily Upside on 10 August 2023, where we will see the following and in the meantime, stay tuned:
It’s been anything but a breeze for wind.
Siemens Energy, a major German player in the wind energy industry, told investors on Monday the losses at its wind turbine division will likely climb higher than previously thought.
This comes amid broader financing turbulence in the wind industry, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.
One executive at energy company Equinor didn’t mince words talking to the WSJ: “At the moment, we are seeing the industry’s first crisis.”
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/op-ed- ... ent-845851
Re: WINDMILLS AND SOLAR FARMS
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR SEPTEMBER 12, 2023 AT 10:11 AM
Paul R Plante, NYSPE says:
And let us be very clear on one thing here, people – this so-called crisis of these windmill companies is SELF-INFLICTED as a result of their CORPORATE STUPIDITY, CORPORATE NEGLIGENCE and CORPORATE GREED, so why should we, the American people have to bear the financial burden for their failure to conduct due diligence?
And make no mistake, that is what is about to happen!
We as a people are going to be punished for CORPORATE STUPIDITY we had no control over and no say in.
And on that note, before we go back to the Motley Fool article titled “Wind Energy Faces its First Crisis as Costs Mount” by The Daily Upside on 10 August 2023, according to a Fox News article titled “Biden staff abruptly end press conference while Biden is answering questions” by Hanna Panreck on 11 September 2023, the American DICTATOR Joe Biden is calling people like me who don’t buy into his CLIMATE CRISIS BULL**** a “lying, dog-faced pony soldier,” to wit:
“Well, there’s a lot of lying, dog-faced pony soldiers out there about — about global warming, but not anymore.”
“All of a sudden, they’re all realizing it’s a problem.”
“And there’s nothing like seeing the light.”
end quotes
We’re seeing the light, alright, and it has absolutely nothing to do with global warming.
The problem we are realizing is that we have a lying, dog-faced pony soldier in the Washington white house named Joseph Robinette Biden, Junior with an INSANE GREEN DREAM that is going to destroy our economy, which takes us back to the Motley Fool article titled “Wind Energy Faces its First Crisis as Costs Mount” by The Daily Upside on 10 August 2023, to wit:
According to the WSJ, at least 10 major offshore wind farm projects in the US and Europe worth a collective $33 billion have run into some kind of difficulty over the past few weeks.
end quote
Talk about seeing the light, alright, there it is shining very bright and very clear which takes us to a Reuters article titled “Wood Mackenzie: govts’ ‘unrealistic’ offshore wind expansion target would require $100 billion by 2026” on 18 August 2023, where we are informed as follows about the problems for us as a people being created by the lying, dog-faced pony soldier in the Washington white house named Joseph Robinette Biden, Junior with his INSANE GREEN DREAM that is going to destroy our economy, to wit:
(Reuters) – Government targets to increase wind power installations would see annual capacity additions reach 80 gigawatts (GW) per year by 2030, requiring $100 billion in secured investment in the supply chain by 2026, Wood Mackenzie said in a report.
“The supply chain is struggling to scale up and will be an impediment to achieving decarbonisation targets if change does not happen,” said Chris Seiple, vice chair, power and renewables at Wood Mackenzie.
“Nearly 80 GW of annual installations to meet all government targets is not realistic, even achieving our forecasted 30 GW in additions will prove unrealistic if there isn’t immediate investment in the supply chain,” Seiple said.
Wood Mackenzie noted that the low profit margins on offshore wind production and uncertainty about project timings resulting in very different supply-chain needs are making it hard to drum up investment in the sector.
end quotes
And of course, that takes us back to GOVERNMENT NEGLIGENCE and GOVERNMENT STUPIDITY because the supply chain issues should have been foreseen IF the Biden regime had performed a COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS of this BIDEN BOONDOGGLE, which of course they didn’t, and it is we, the American people who are going to pay that price, as well, which moves us along to a very informative article in The Telegraph on that subject titled “Anyone who thinks renewable wind and solar energy will be cheap is dreaming” by Kathryn Porter on 25 August 2023, where we have as follows, to wit:
Politicians everywhere are repeating the mantra that renewable energy is cheap, and we need to use it instead of gas (currently expensive in and near Europe) to bring down energy costs for households.
As US President Joe Biden said of clean energy before signing the poetically named Executive Actions on Tackling Climate Change, Creating Jobs, and Restoring Scientific Integrity “it’s affordable; because it’s clean; because, in many cases, it’s cheaper… [clean technologies] will ultimately become cheaper than any other kind of energy, helping us dramatically expand our economy and create more jobs with a cleaner, cleaner environment”.
end quote
And as you read that, keep in mind the fact that Joe Biden has never worked a real job in his life where he has been responsible for anything, or was ever held to account for anything; to the contrary, for his whole life long, he has been a hack politician feeding off the taxpayers, and when it comes to engineering and technologies, Joe Biden hasn’t a clue as to what he is talking about, which takes us back to that article, to wit:
The Inflation Reduction Act has been designed to make this a reality.
Lots of investment in lovely green energy and green jobs.
This sounds wonderful.
Unfortunately, renewables are not cheap.
In the electricity market, we get round that problem with subsidies.
Originally, subsidies were paid because the technology for producing renewable electricity was immature meaning upfront costs were exceptionally high, but after more than 20 years of subsidies, this is no longer the case.
Today, electricity prices are still determined for the most part by the cost of fossil fuels, so renewable electricity can be sold at much higher prices than the short term cost of production (which is next to nothing).
But even then, renewables still require subsidies.
In fact, subsidies are growing.
According to the Energy Information Administration, renewable subsidies in the US jumped to $15.6 billion in fiscal year 2022 from $7.4 billion in fiscal year 2016.
end quotes
And ask yourselves, people this important question, to wit:
WHO IS IT THAT IS REALLY PAYING THOSE SUBSIDIES AS A FORM OF CORPORATE WELFARE?
And here once again, we will pause for station identification!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/op-ed- ... ent-846118
Paul R Plante, NYSPE says:
And let us be very clear on one thing here, people – this so-called crisis of these windmill companies is SELF-INFLICTED as a result of their CORPORATE STUPIDITY, CORPORATE NEGLIGENCE and CORPORATE GREED, so why should we, the American people have to bear the financial burden for their failure to conduct due diligence?
And make no mistake, that is what is about to happen!
We as a people are going to be punished for CORPORATE STUPIDITY we had no control over and no say in.
And on that note, before we go back to the Motley Fool article titled “Wind Energy Faces its First Crisis as Costs Mount” by The Daily Upside on 10 August 2023, according to a Fox News article titled “Biden staff abruptly end press conference while Biden is answering questions” by Hanna Panreck on 11 September 2023, the American DICTATOR Joe Biden is calling people like me who don’t buy into his CLIMATE CRISIS BULL**** a “lying, dog-faced pony soldier,” to wit:
“Well, there’s a lot of lying, dog-faced pony soldiers out there about — about global warming, but not anymore.”
“All of a sudden, they’re all realizing it’s a problem.”
“And there’s nothing like seeing the light.”
end quotes
We’re seeing the light, alright, and it has absolutely nothing to do with global warming.
The problem we are realizing is that we have a lying, dog-faced pony soldier in the Washington white house named Joseph Robinette Biden, Junior with an INSANE GREEN DREAM that is going to destroy our economy, which takes us back to the Motley Fool article titled “Wind Energy Faces its First Crisis as Costs Mount” by The Daily Upside on 10 August 2023, to wit:
According to the WSJ, at least 10 major offshore wind farm projects in the US and Europe worth a collective $33 billion have run into some kind of difficulty over the past few weeks.
end quote
Talk about seeing the light, alright, there it is shining very bright and very clear which takes us to a Reuters article titled “Wood Mackenzie: govts’ ‘unrealistic’ offshore wind expansion target would require $100 billion by 2026” on 18 August 2023, where we are informed as follows about the problems for us as a people being created by the lying, dog-faced pony soldier in the Washington white house named Joseph Robinette Biden, Junior with his INSANE GREEN DREAM that is going to destroy our economy, to wit:
(Reuters) – Government targets to increase wind power installations would see annual capacity additions reach 80 gigawatts (GW) per year by 2030, requiring $100 billion in secured investment in the supply chain by 2026, Wood Mackenzie said in a report.
“The supply chain is struggling to scale up and will be an impediment to achieving decarbonisation targets if change does not happen,” said Chris Seiple, vice chair, power and renewables at Wood Mackenzie.
“Nearly 80 GW of annual installations to meet all government targets is not realistic, even achieving our forecasted 30 GW in additions will prove unrealistic if there isn’t immediate investment in the supply chain,” Seiple said.
Wood Mackenzie noted that the low profit margins on offshore wind production and uncertainty about project timings resulting in very different supply-chain needs are making it hard to drum up investment in the sector.
end quotes
And of course, that takes us back to GOVERNMENT NEGLIGENCE and GOVERNMENT STUPIDITY because the supply chain issues should have been foreseen IF the Biden regime had performed a COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS of this BIDEN BOONDOGGLE, which of course they didn’t, and it is we, the American people who are going to pay that price, as well, which moves us along to a very informative article in The Telegraph on that subject titled “Anyone who thinks renewable wind and solar energy will be cheap is dreaming” by Kathryn Porter on 25 August 2023, where we have as follows, to wit:
Politicians everywhere are repeating the mantra that renewable energy is cheap, and we need to use it instead of gas (currently expensive in and near Europe) to bring down energy costs for households.
As US President Joe Biden said of clean energy before signing the poetically named Executive Actions on Tackling Climate Change, Creating Jobs, and Restoring Scientific Integrity “it’s affordable; because it’s clean; because, in many cases, it’s cheaper… [clean technologies] will ultimately become cheaper than any other kind of energy, helping us dramatically expand our economy and create more jobs with a cleaner, cleaner environment”.
end quote
And as you read that, keep in mind the fact that Joe Biden has never worked a real job in his life where he has been responsible for anything, or was ever held to account for anything; to the contrary, for his whole life long, he has been a hack politician feeding off the taxpayers, and when it comes to engineering and technologies, Joe Biden hasn’t a clue as to what he is talking about, which takes us back to that article, to wit:
The Inflation Reduction Act has been designed to make this a reality.
Lots of investment in lovely green energy and green jobs.
This sounds wonderful.
Unfortunately, renewables are not cheap.
In the electricity market, we get round that problem with subsidies.
Originally, subsidies were paid because the technology for producing renewable electricity was immature meaning upfront costs were exceptionally high, but after more than 20 years of subsidies, this is no longer the case.
Today, electricity prices are still determined for the most part by the cost of fossil fuels, so renewable electricity can be sold at much higher prices than the short term cost of production (which is next to nothing).
But even then, renewables still require subsidies.
In fact, subsidies are growing.
According to the Energy Information Administration, renewable subsidies in the US jumped to $15.6 billion in fiscal year 2022 from $7.4 billion in fiscal year 2016.
end quotes
And ask yourselves, people this important question, to wit:
WHO IS IT THAT IS REALLY PAYING THOSE SUBSIDIES AS A FORM OF CORPORATE WELFARE?
And here once again, we will pause for station identification!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/op-ed- ... ent-846118
Re: WINDMILLS AND SOLAR FARMS
Associated Press
"As US East Coast ramps up offshore wind power projects, much remains unknown"
Story by WAYNE PARRY
12 SEPTEMBER 2023
POINT PLEASANT BEACH, N.J. (AP) — As the U.S. races to build offshore wind power projects, transforming coastlines from Maine to South Carolina, much remains unknown about how the facilities could affect the environment.
And that worries some people, particularly those who depend on the sea for their livelihoods.
“We don’t have the science to know what the impact will be,” said Jim Hutchinson, managing editor of The Fisherman magazine in New Jersey.
“The attitude has been, ‘Build it and we’ll figure it out.’”
The wind power industry disputes such claims, citing years of studies.
So far, four offshore wind projects have been approved by the federal government for the U.S. East Coast, according to the American Clean Power Association.
Vineyard Wind will place 62 turbines about 15 miles (24 kilometers) off Martha’s Vineyard, generating enough electricity to power 400,000 homes.
South Fork Wind will place 12 turbines in the waters off Long Island, New York, about 35 miles (56 kilometers) east of Montauk Point, to power 70,000 homes.
And Ocean Wind I, the first of two Orsted projects in New Jersey, will place 98 turbines about 15 miles off Atlantic City and Ocean City, generating power for 500,000 homes.
The company is a Danish wind power business that will build two of the three offshore projects approved for New Jersey.
Those projects are in addition to the planned Revolution Wind development, about 15 miles southeast of Point Judith, Rhode Island, with 65 turbines powering nearly 250,000 homes.
Numerous others have been proposed, and the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management plans to review at least 16 offshore wind projects by 2025.
“All this is happening so fast," said Greg Cudnik, a recreational fisherman, bait and tackle shop owner and party boat captain from Ship Bottom, New Jersey.
"Science takes time.”
A joint study in March by two federal scientific agencies and the commercial fishing industry documents numerous impacts that offshore wind power projects could have on fish and marine mammals, including noise, vibration, electromagnetic fields and heat transfer that could alter the environment.
Like numerous existing studies, the report pointed out the complexities of how the structures and cables might interact with marine life.
For instance, turbines can attract some fish and repel others.
The March study said large underwater platforms are rapidly colonized by smaller, bottom-dwelling marine life, including shellfish and crabs, which in turn attract larger predators like black sea bass.
At the same time, cloudy water from turbine operations, noise, vibrations and electromagnetic fields could also make species leave an area.
In most instances, report authors agreed that more studies are needed.
Andy Lipsky, who oversees the wind energy team at NOAA’s Northeast Fisheries Science Center, is a co-author.
He said the work helps agencies define monitoring required for long-term studies and that more work is required to determine how offshore wind energy changes marine habitats.
Research in other countries also is also nuanced.
Some European studies have shown that crabs and lobster are attracted to harder sea bottoms that support wind turbines.
Others, including flatfish and whiting, were shown to leave those areas.
And in May, the Biden Administration offered an $850,000 grant to collect more information on the hearing abilities of critically endangered North American right whales, citing “knowledge gaps” in how the animals behave.
The request was made “in support of the rapid development of offshore wind,” according to a notice on the Grants.gov website.
Substantial research already exists.
The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has posted a half-dozen or more studies on its web site every year since 2016; in several instances the studies called for further investigation and analysis.
Phil Sgro, a spokesman for the American Clean Power Association, said the industry believes sufficient scientific studies exist to establish that offshore wind development can be done “in a manner that is both economical and environmentally responsible.”
Opponents blame ocean floor preparation for causing or contributing to the deaths of 70 whales on the U.S. East Coast since December.
But three federal agencies say there is no evidence the two are related.
The U.S. fishing industry — both commercial and recreational — has numerous concerns about offshore wind impacting operations in places long available for fishing with minimal interference.
Interviews with commercial and recreational fishermen and women show they share common anxieties about the offshore wind turbines chasing away species they have long relied on.
They fear electromagnetic fields emitted from underwater power cables could deter or harm some marine life.
They worry about being able to safely navigate around the turbines, and about being prohibited from productive fishing grounds on which they have relied for generations.
They also worry that unforeseen consequences could reduce catches and trigger government limits on how much can be caught if fish stocks diminish.
And while some companies have voluntarily agreed to compensate fishermen for any economic damage, there is no mandate requiring it.
“Offshore wind is the single greatest existential threat to commercial fishing in the United States of America right now," Meghan Lapp, fisheries liaison for Seafreeze, a seafood company based in North Kingstown, Rhode Island, told New Jersey lawmakers at a recent hearing.
Cudnik, the New Jersey boat captain, worries about prime species being driven away by changes to the ocean floor.
“Clams, scallops, flounder, and sand eels are associated with soft sand bottoms,” he said.
“Striped bass, sea bass, mahis — everything eats these eels."
"When they are in abundance, it’s awesome fishing."
"All these offshore wind areas are in that prime habitat.”
And Keith Craffey, president of the Baymen’s Protective Association on New Jersey’s Raritan Bay, worries that power cables from a New York project coming ashore in New Jersey will be placed across productive clam beds his members use, potentially rendering the areas off-limits.
“If we have to lay off 50 guys because of it, are the offshore wind companies going to pick those 50 guys up?” he asked.
On Monday, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management released an environmental impact statement for the proposed Empire Wind project in New York, designed to power 700,000 homes.
It determined that the project could have “moderate to major” impacts on commercial fisheries, and “minor to moderate” impacts for recreational fishing, although minor beneficial effects could also occur from the creation of an artificial reef that will attract some fish.
New Jersey's commercial fishing industry had nearly $690 million in sales in 2020, not including imports, according to the U.S. Commerce Department.
The recreational sector generated $724 million in sales that year.
Sgro said the wind power industry has worked closely with the government and the fishing industry to address concerns, including agreeing to avoid placing turbines in the areas most heavily used by anglers.
He said a study in the waters off southern New England determined that heat and electromagnetic fields from buried cables will not negatively affect important fish species in the area.
Orsted, the developer behind two of New Jersey's approved projects, said it has worked hard to “avoid, minimize and mitigate” negative impacts on fishing.
The company said a 7-year study of its wind farm in Block Island, Rhode Island, found the catch of most species was unaffected and that there was a greater abundance of black sea bass and cod after construction.
The study was paid for by Orsted, designed in cooperation with local commercial fishermen and carried out by INSPIRE Environmental, which does ocean floor studies for companies and governments.
Orsted says it will compensate boat crews for damage to or loss of gear; pay direct compensation to recreational and commercial vessels adversely impacted, and create a navigational safety fund.
It also plans to coordinate with state and federal authorities on seasonal operating restrictions to protect flounder and herring.
The federal government has endorsed — but not required — compensation to the fishing industry for negative effects from offshore wind.
Eleven states are considering setting up a regional fund to administer such payments.
U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., a New Jersey Democrat, supports the compensation “if the industry experiences economic losses as a result of the transition to offshore wind power.”
___
Follow Wayne Parry on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, at twitter.com/WayneParryAC
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/as-us ... aaf5&ei=19
"As US East Coast ramps up offshore wind power projects, much remains unknown"
Story by WAYNE PARRY
12 SEPTEMBER 2023
POINT PLEASANT BEACH, N.J. (AP) — As the U.S. races to build offshore wind power projects, transforming coastlines from Maine to South Carolina, much remains unknown about how the facilities could affect the environment.
And that worries some people, particularly those who depend on the sea for their livelihoods.
“We don’t have the science to know what the impact will be,” said Jim Hutchinson, managing editor of The Fisherman magazine in New Jersey.
“The attitude has been, ‘Build it and we’ll figure it out.’”
The wind power industry disputes such claims, citing years of studies.
So far, four offshore wind projects have been approved by the federal government for the U.S. East Coast, according to the American Clean Power Association.
Vineyard Wind will place 62 turbines about 15 miles (24 kilometers) off Martha’s Vineyard, generating enough electricity to power 400,000 homes.
South Fork Wind will place 12 turbines in the waters off Long Island, New York, about 35 miles (56 kilometers) east of Montauk Point, to power 70,000 homes.
And Ocean Wind I, the first of two Orsted projects in New Jersey, will place 98 turbines about 15 miles off Atlantic City and Ocean City, generating power for 500,000 homes.
The company is a Danish wind power business that will build two of the three offshore projects approved for New Jersey.
Those projects are in addition to the planned Revolution Wind development, about 15 miles southeast of Point Judith, Rhode Island, with 65 turbines powering nearly 250,000 homes.
Numerous others have been proposed, and the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management plans to review at least 16 offshore wind projects by 2025.
“All this is happening so fast," said Greg Cudnik, a recreational fisherman, bait and tackle shop owner and party boat captain from Ship Bottom, New Jersey.
"Science takes time.”
A joint study in March by two federal scientific agencies and the commercial fishing industry documents numerous impacts that offshore wind power projects could have on fish and marine mammals, including noise, vibration, electromagnetic fields and heat transfer that could alter the environment.
Like numerous existing studies, the report pointed out the complexities of how the structures and cables might interact with marine life.
For instance, turbines can attract some fish and repel others.
The March study said large underwater platforms are rapidly colonized by smaller, bottom-dwelling marine life, including shellfish and crabs, which in turn attract larger predators like black sea bass.
At the same time, cloudy water from turbine operations, noise, vibrations and electromagnetic fields could also make species leave an area.
In most instances, report authors agreed that more studies are needed.
Andy Lipsky, who oversees the wind energy team at NOAA’s Northeast Fisheries Science Center, is a co-author.
He said the work helps agencies define monitoring required for long-term studies and that more work is required to determine how offshore wind energy changes marine habitats.
Research in other countries also is also nuanced.
Some European studies have shown that crabs and lobster are attracted to harder sea bottoms that support wind turbines.
Others, including flatfish and whiting, were shown to leave those areas.
And in May, the Biden Administration offered an $850,000 grant to collect more information on the hearing abilities of critically endangered North American right whales, citing “knowledge gaps” in how the animals behave.
The request was made “in support of the rapid development of offshore wind,” according to a notice on the Grants.gov website.
Substantial research already exists.
The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has posted a half-dozen or more studies on its web site every year since 2016; in several instances the studies called for further investigation and analysis.
Phil Sgro, a spokesman for the American Clean Power Association, said the industry believes sufficient scientific studies exist to establish that offshore wind development can be done “in a manner that is both economical and environmentally responsible.”
Opponents blame ocean floor preparation for causing or contributing to the deaths of 70 whales on the U.S. East Coast since December.
But three federal agencies say there is no evidence the two are related.
The U.S. fishing industry — both commercial and recreational — has numerous concerns about offshore wind impacting operations in places long available for fishing with minimal interference.
Interviews with commercial and recreational fishermen and women show they share common anxieties about the offshore wind turbines chasing away species they have long relied on.
They fear electromagnetic fields emitted from underwater power cables could deter or harm some marine life.
They worry about being able to safely navigate around the turbines, and about being prohibited from productive fishing grounds on which they have relied for generations.
They also worry that unforeseen consequences could reduce catches and trigger government limits on how much can be caught if fish stocks diminish.
And while some companies have voluntarily agreed to compensate fishermen for any economic damage, there is no mandate requiring it.
“Offshore wind is the single greatest existential threat to commercial fishing in the United States of America right now," Meghan Lapp, fisheries liaison for Seafreeze, a seafood company based in North Kingstown, Rhode Island, told New Jersey lawmakers at a recent hearing.
Cudnik, the New Jersey boat captain, worries about prime species being driven away by changes to the ocean floor.
“Clams, scallops, flounder, and sand eels are associated with soft sand bottoms,” he said.
“Striped bass, sea bass, mahis — everything eats these eels."
"When they are in abundance, it’s awesome fishing."
"All these offshore wind areas are in that prime habitat.”
And Keith Craffey, president of the Baymen’s Protective Association on New Jersey’s Raritan Bay, worries that power cables from a New York project coming ashore in New Jersey will be placed across productive clam beds his members use, potentially rendering the areas off-limits.
“If we have to lay off 50 guys because of it, are the offshore wind companies going to pick those 50 guys up?” he asked.
On Monday, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management released an environmental impact statement for the proposed Empire Wind project in New York, designed to power 700,000 homes.
It determined that the project could have “moderate to major” impacts on commercial fisheries, and “minor to moderate” impacts for recreational fishing, although minor beneficial effects could also occur from the creation of an artificial reef that will attract some fish.
New Jersey's commercial fishing industry had nearly $690 million in sales in 2020, not including imports, according to the U.S. Commerce Department.
The recreational sector generated $724 million in sales that year.
Sgro said the wind power industry has worked closely with the government and the fishing industry to address concerns, including agreeing to avoid placing turbines in the areas most heavily used by anglers.
He said a study in the waters off southern New England determined that heat and electromagnetic fields from buried cables will not negatively affect important fish species in the area.
Orsted, the developer behind two of New Jersey's approved projects, said it has worked hard to “avoid, minimize and mitigate” negative impacts on fishing.
The company said a 7-year study of its wind farm in Block Island, Rhode Island, found the catch of most species was unaffected and that there was a greater abundance of black sea bass and cod after construction.
The study was paid for by Orsted, designed in cooperation with local commercial fishermen and carried out by INSPIRE Environmental, which does ocean floor studies for companies and governments.
Orsted says it will compensate boat crews for damage to or loss of gear; pay direct compensation to recreational and commercial vessels adversely impacted, and create a navigational safety fund.
It also plans to coordinate with state and federal authorities on seasonal operating restrictions to protect flounder and herring.
The federal government has endorsed — but not required — compensation to the fishing industry for negative effects from offshore wind.
Eleven states are considering setting up a regional fund to administer such payments.
U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., a New Jersey Democrat, supports the compensation “if the industry experiences economic losses as a result of the transition to offshore wind power.”
___
Follow Wayne Parry on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, at twitter.com/WayneParryAC
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/as-us ... aaf5&ei=19
Re: WINDMILLS AND SOLAR FARMS
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR SEPTEMBER 13, 2023 AT 5:58 PM
Paul R Plante, NYSPE says:
And before we go back to the Telegraph article titled “Anyone who thinks renewable wind and solar energy will be cheap is dreaming” by Kathryn Porter on 25 August 2023, where we had the statement therein that “according to the Energy Information Administration, renewable subsidies in the US jumped to $15.6 billion in fiscal year 2022 from $7.4 billion in fiscal year 2016,” and Joe Biden’s specious claim on January 27, 2021 before signing the poetically named Executive Actions on Tackling Climate Change, Creating Jobs, and Restoring Scientific Integrity that “clean energy is affordable; because it’s clean; because, in many cases, it’s cheaper,” which is ridiculous gibberish and Karmela Harris-type word salad, and “clean technologies will ultimately become cheaper than any other kind of energy, helping us dramatically expand our economy and create more jobs with a cleaner, cleaner environment,” let’s come forward to today on the subject of those subsidies which are coming out of the pockets of we, the American people, by going to a Reuters article titled “Treasury’s Adeyemo calls for eliminating subsidies, including to energy companies” on September 11, 2023, where we have Joe’s slow thinking, pipe smoking U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo spouting nonsense, as follows, to wit:
Sept 11 (Reuters) – The United States should think about eliminating corporate subsidies, including to energy companies, U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo said in New York on Monday.
end quotes
All well and good say I, cut them all out, but as we shall see, the slow-thinking Wally (slow thinking is a requirement to be a member of the Biden administration, so that NO ONE will outshine Joe) is being selective here, to wit:
Adeyemo defended President Joe Biden’s budget proposal for fiscal 2024, noting that achieving fiscal sustainability would include modest tax increases, boosting tax revenue collections and finding other ways to cut costs.
end quote
HUH?
Modest tax increases?
Pardon me, but I thought I remembered Joe Biden saying that he was not going to tax us to pay for his INSANE GREEN DREAM and all his windmills, which was always a lie, because we are footing the bill which is growing all the time, which takes us back to Wally, to wit:
“We want to be sure we have the money to pay for our priorities,” he told the Economic Club of New York.
Biden’s budget calls for boosting revenues by eliminating $31 billion in tax preferences and subsidies for oil and gas companies, who he says have failed to invest in boosting energy production, while continuing to offer targeted tax credits for clean-energy investments under the Inflation Reduction Act.
end quotes
Tax credits for clean-energy investments under the Inflation Reduction Act means those LARGE CORPORATIONS do not pay their fair share, which takes us back to Wally. to wit:
“We can also think about what we can do to eliminate subsidies,” he said.
“None of us thinks it makes sense to subsidize energy companies in light of how they’re doing in this country.”
“But there are probably other subsidies and other things we can do to make the budget more efficient.”
end quotes
What hogwash!
So let’s go back to the Telegraph, where we have as follows concerning the reality facing us as a people and as a nation, despite Joe Biden’s bull**** to the contrary, keeping in mind that Joe Biden is the quintessential (representing the most perfect or typical example of a quality or class) lying, dog-faced pony soldier, to wit:
If projects are not economic when electricity prices are at record highs, how will they work if a time comes when electricity prices are very low?
That’s the dirty little secret of the renewables game.
The very high upfront costs mean developers have to be paid lots of money, and if the money from selling electricity isn’t enough then it has to come from elsewhere.
But ultimately it comes out of consumers’ pockets, whether directly through higher bills, or indirectly through higher taxes.
That’s not all.
Developed countries built their electricity grids decades ago when electricity came from a few large power stations.
Renewable generation is built where it’s windy/sunny or has good access to water at height or moving fast (for hydro).
These places tend to be not where old power stations used to be or where consumers are.
This means lots of new infrastructure is needed to connect it all up.
Guess who has to pay for that?
Next is the issue of intermittency: wind and sun vary from moment to moment.
Individual clouds make a measurable difference to generation, as do gusts of wind.
This creates two additional challenges – one is that if there’s no wind or sun, renewable output falls – the famous California “duck curve” measures the way solar output changes through the day with a major drop at sunset, when gas power stations need to take over.
Other sources of generation (there is no at-scale energy storage solution) have to be on standby to run when renewable output falls.
But no-one builds standby anything unless it’s worth their while – and that’s another big chunk of change consumers have to cough up.
The other problem with intermittency is that electricity grids need supply and demand to be finely balanced in real time.
Grid equipment can be damaged if this balance is not maintained within narrow tolerances.
If clouds and gusts of wind change supply from moment to moment, grid operators have to use a range of techniques such as discharging batteries, getting conventional power stations to vary output, or large users to vary consumption, over short timeframes.
Unsurprisingly, nobody does any of this for free.
Another cost to consumers.
The final sting in the tail is that the grid infrastructure, despite expansion to cope with renewables, often can’t use all the renewable electricity generated.
This electricity is wasted, and the renewable generators have to be compensated through “curtailment” or “congestion” fees, again paid for by consumers.
According to consulting firm Grid Strategies, costs to consumers from congestion on the US power grid jumped 56 per cent in 2022 to an estimated $20.8 billion from $13.3 billion the year before.
Even if the wholesale price of electricity fell to zero to reflect the short-run marginal cost of producing renewable electricity, the price paid by consumers would simply be more disconnected from the wholesale price than it is today.
Consumers pay the wholesale price, plus a network cost (including congestion costs), plus a balancing cost, plus a subsidy cost, plus the retailer/supplier operating costs, plus some profits for everyone in the chain from the generator to the network owner to the network operator to the retailer.
And then some taxes on top.
And to hit net zero the whole electrical system – expanded renewables, expanded grid, backup fossil, balancing, subsidies, curtailment payments and all – will have to be expanded to multiple times its current size, as fossil fuels used directly in such things as heating and transport are replaced with electricity.
Anyone who thinks all this is going to mean cheaper energy is dreaming.
With respect, Mr President.
end quotes
Yes, indeed, dreaming the INSANE GREEN DREAM of American DICTATOR Joseph Robinette Biden, Junior, the Joe Stalin of our times in America today!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/op-ed- ... ent-847159
Paul R Plante, NYSPE says:
And before we go back to the Telegraph article titled “Anyone who thinks renewable wind and solar energy will be cheap is dreaming” by Kathryn Porter on 25 August 2023, where we had the statement therein that “according to the Energy Information Administration, renewable subsidies in the US jumped to $15.6 billion in fiscal year 2022 from $7.4 billion in fiscal year 2016,” and Joe Biden’s specious claim on January 27, 2021 before signing the poetically named Executive Actions on Tackling Climate Change, Creating Jobs, and Restoring Scientific Integrity that “clean energy is affordable; because it’s clean; because, in many cases, it’s cheaper,” which is ridiculous gibberish and Karmela Harris-type word salad, and “clean technologies will ultimately become cheaper than any other kind of energy, helping us dramatically expand our economy and create more jobs with a cleaner, cleaner environment,” let’s come forward to today on the subject of those subsidies which are coming out of the pockets of we, the American people, by going to a Reuters article titled “Treasury’s Adeyemo calls for eliminating subsidies, including to energy companies” on September 11, 2023, where we have Joe’s slow thinking, pipe smoking U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo spouting nonsense, as follows, to wit:
Sept 11 (Reuters) – The United States should think about eliminating corporate subsidies, including to energy companies, U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo said in New York on Monday.
end quotes
All well and good say I, cut them all out, but as we shall see, the slow-thinking Wally (slow thinking is a requirement to be a member of the Biden administration, so that NO ONE will outshine Joe) is being selective here, to wit:
Adeyemo defended President Joe Biden’s budget proposal for fiscal 2024, noting that achieving fiscal sustainability would include modest tax increases, boosting tax revenue collections and finding other ways to cut costs.
end quote
HUH?
Modest tax increases?
Pardon me, but I thought I remembered Joe Biden saying that he was not going to tax us to pay for his INSANE GREEN DREAM and all his windmills, which was always a lie, because we are footing the bill which is growing all the time, which takes us back to Wally, to wit:
“We want to be sure we have the money to pay for our priorities,” he told the Economic Club of New York.
Biden’s budget calls for boosting revenues by eliminating $31 billion in tax preferences and subsidies for oil and gas companies, who he says have failed to invest in boosting energy production, while continuing to offer targeted tax credits for clean-energy investments under the Inflation Reduction Act.
end quotes
Tax credits for clean-energy investments under the Inflation Reduction Act means those LARGE CORPORATIONS do not pay their fair share, which takes us back to Wally. to wit:
“We can also think about what we can do to eliminate subsidies,” he said.
“None of us thinks it makes sense to subsidize energy companies in light of how they’re doing in this country.”
“But there are probably other subsidies and other things we can do to make the budget more efficient.”
end quotes
What hogwash!
So let’s go back to the Telegraph, where we have as follows concerning the reality facing us as a people and as a nation, despite Joe Biden’s bull**** to the contrary, keeping in mind that Joe Biden is the quintessential (representing the most perfect or typical example of a quality or class) lying, dog-faced pony soldier, to wit:
If projects are not economic when electricity prices are at record highs, how will they work if a time comes when electricity prices are very low?
That’s the dirty little secret of the renewables game.
The very high upfront costs mean developers have to be paid lots of money, and if the money from selling electricity isn’t enough then it has to come from elsewhere.
But ultimately it comes out of consumers’ pockets, whether directly through higher bills, or indirectly through higher taxes.
That’s not all.
Developed countries built their electricity grids decades ago when electricity came from a few large power stations.
Renewable generation is built where it’s windy/sunny or has good access to water at height or moving fast (for hydro).
These places tend to be not where old power stations used to be or where consumers are.
This means lots of new infrastructure is needed to connect it all up.
Guess who has to pay for that?
Next is the issue of intermittency: wind and sun vary from moment to moment.
Individual clouds make a measurable difference to generation, as do gusts of wind.
This creates two additional challenges – one is that if there’s no wind or sun, renewable output falls – the famous California “duck curve” measures the way solar output changes through the day with a major drop at sunset, when gas power stations need to take over.
Other sources of generation (there is no at-scale energy storage solution) have to be on standby to run when renewable output falls.
But no-one builds standby anything unless it’s worth their while – and that’s another big chunk of change consumers have to cough up.
The other problem with intermittency is that electricity grids need supply and demand to be finely balanced in real time.
Grid equipment can be damaged if this balance is not maintained within narrow tolerances.
If clouds and gusts of wind change supply from moment to moment, grid operators have to use a range of techniques such as discharging batteries, getting conventional power stations to vary output, or large users to vary consumption, over short timeframes.
Unsurprisingly, nobody does any of this for free.
Another cost to consumers.
The final sting in the tail is that the grid infrastructure, despite expansion to cope with renewables, often can’t use all the renewable electricity generated.
This electricity is wasted, and the renewable generators have to be compensated through “curtailment” or “congestion” fees, again paid for by consumers.
According to consulting firm Grid Strategies, costs to consumers from congestion on the US power grid jumped 56 per cent in 2022 to an estimated $20.8 billion from $13.3 billion the year before.
Even if the wholesale price of electricity fell to zero to reflect the short-run marginal cost of producing renewable electricity, the price paid by consumers would simply be more disconnected from the wholesale price than it is today.
Consumers pay the wholesale price, plus a network cost (including congestion costs), plus a balancing cost, plus a subsidy cost, plus the retailer/supplier operating costs, plus some profits for everyone in the chain from the generator to the network owner to the network operator to the retailer.
And then some taxes on top.
And to hit net zero the whole electrical system – expanded renewables, expanded grid, backup fossil, balancing, subsidies, curtailment payments and all – will have to be expanded to multiple times its current size, as fossil fuels used directly in such things as heating and transport are replaced with electricity.
Anyone who thinks all this is going to mean cheaper energy is dreaming.
With respect, Mr President.
end quotes
Yes, indeed, dreaming the INSANE GREEN DREAM of American DICTATOR Joseph Robinette Biden, Junior, the Joe Stalin of our times in America today!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/op-ed- ... ent-847159
Re: WINDMILLS AND SOLAR FARMS
REUTERS
"EU's von der Leyen pledges more support for wind industry"
Story by By Kate Abnett
14 SEPTEMBER 2023
BRUSSELS (Reuters) -The European Union will put forward a package of measures to support its wind power industry as renewable energy companies struggle with challenges including inflation, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said on Wednesday.
"We will fast-track permitting even more."
"We will improve the auction systems across the EU."
"We will focus on skills, access to finance and stable supply chains," von der Leyen said in a speech to the European Parliament.
Shares in wind turbine makers Siemens Energy, Vestas and Nordex, which have all suffered losses in relation to the wind industry's flawed market design, were up between 1.6% and 4.4% on the news.
The 27-country EU has among the world's most ambitious targets to expand renewable energy and is finalising a legally binding goal to produce 42.5% of EU energy from renewable sources by 2030.
But Europe's offshore wind power industry has warned governments it is not big enough to deliver green power goals and requires a jump in policy support to get on track - particularly if new wind farms are to be manufactured in Europe.
"The future of our clean tech industry has to be made in Europe," von der Leyen said.
Final investment decisions in European offshore wind farms hit a 10-year low in 2022, as developers faced record-high inflation, soaring interest rates, increased seabed leasing fees and volatile energy markets.
Energy industry lobby Eurelectric welcomed the EU announcement, but called for urgent support to upgrade Europe's power grids to handle a large influx of renewable energy.
The European Commission has said power grid investments of 584 billion euros ($627 billion) are needed from 2020 to 2030 to meet green goals.
Europe's efforts to curb climate change are facing increasing political pressure ahead of EU elections next year, including from von der Leyen's own political group, which has opposed new EU nature laws that would affect farmers.
Von der Leyen vowed to "stay the course" on Europe's green agenda, promising talks with industries - including agriculture - concerned about their role in the green transition.
(Reporting by Kate Abnett; Additional reporting by Christoph Steitz; Editing by Louise Heavens and Mark Potter)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... 9127&ei=24
"EU's von der Leyen pledges more support for wind industry"
Story by By Kate Abnett
14 SEPTEMBER 2023
BRUSSELS (Reuters) -The European Union will put forward a package of measures to support its wind power industry as renewable energy companies struggle with challenges including inflation, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said on Wednesday.
"We will fast-track permitting even more."
"We will improve the auction systems across the EU."
"We will focus on skills, access to finance and stable supply chains," von der Leyen said in a speech to the European Parliament.
Shares in wind turbine makers Siemens Energy, Vestas and Nordex, which have all suffered losses in relation to the wind industry's flawed market design, were up between 1.6% and 4.4% on the news.
The 27-country EU has among the world's most ambitious targets to expand renewable energy and is finalising a legally binding goal to produce 42.5% of EU energy from renewable sources by 2030.
But Europe's offshore wind power industry has warned governments it is not big enough to deliver green power goals and requires a jump in policy support to get on track - particularly if new wind farms are to be manufactured in Europe.
"The future of our clean tech industry has to be made in Europe," von der Leyen said.
Final investment decisions in European offshore wind farms hit a 10-year low in 2022, as developers faced record-high inflation, soaring interest rates, increased seabed leasing fees and volatile energy markets.
Energy industry lobby Eurelectric welcomed the EU announcement, but called for urgent support to upgrade Europe's power grids to handle a large influx of renewable energy.
The European Commission has said power grid investments of 584 billion euros ($627 billion) are needed from 2020 to 2030 to meet green goals.
Europe's efforts to curb climate change are facing increasing political pressure ahead of EU elections next year, including from von der Leyen's own political group, which has opposed new EU nature laws that would affect farmers.
Von der Leyen vowed to "stay the course" on Europe's green agenda, promising talks with industries - including agriculture - concerned about their role in the green transition.
(Reporting by Kate Abnett; Additional reporting by Christoph Steitz; Editing by Louise Heavens and Mark Potter)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... 9127&ei=24
Re: WINDMILLS AND SOLAR FARMS
The Associated Press
"Offshore wind energy plans advance in New Jersey amid opposition"
Story by WAYNE PARRY, Associated Press
15 SEPTEMBER 2023
ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. (AP) — Two major offshore wind power projects are taking steps forward in New Jersey as the owners of one project agreed to bring the federal government in on their environmental monitoring plans at an earlier stage than has ever been done, and federal regulators said plans for another project are not expected to kill or seriously injure marine life.
They come as New Jersey continues to grow as a hub of opposition to offshore wind projects from residents' groups and their political allies, mostly Republicans.
The state's Democratic governor and Democratic-controlled Legislature want to make the state the East Coast leader in offshore wind energy.
Community Offshore Wind, a joint venture between Essen, Germany-based RWE and New York-based National Grid Ventures, on Thursday announced a five-year partnership with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to promote the exchange of data and expertise on environmental monitoring for offshore wind projects.
The agreement will bring the federal agency into the company's planning process at a much earlier stage than is currently done in the offshore wind industry, an arrangement that could become the new industry standard, according to company president Doug Perkins.
“Instead of us coming up with this on our own and getting some feedback from the agencies, we will work together to make sure that it’s efficient in the data they collect,” he said.
“It creates the opportunity, the avenue for us to engage with them, and for them to engage with us, to make sure that our plans, how we’re sampling, where we’re sampling, when we’re sampling, fits with what they do and with what will be required of the industry.”
Jon Hare, director of NOAA's Northeast Fisheries Science Center, praised the proposed collaboration.
“With help from a number of collaborators and the fishing industry, our agency maintains some of the world’s most comprehensive data sets on large marine ecosystems,” he said.
“Our goal is to bring offshore wind energy monitoring activities into this partnership."
"This agreement is our first chance to make these partnerships a reality and show by example that effective scientific monitoring benefits everyone.”
Community has leased a 125,000 acre site 60 miles (97 kilometers) off Long Island, New York, and 37 miles (60 kilometers) off Little Egg Harbor in New Jersey.
Its project has yet to be designed but is likely to include at least 100 wind turbines. It could be active by 2030 or 2031, Perkins said.
On Wednesday, NOAA released a letter of authorization for Denmark-based Orsted's Ocean Wind I project in southern New Jersey.
It involved approval of plans for unintentional harassment or injury of marine mammals during construction of the project, which would build 98 turbines about 15 miles (24 kilometers) off the coast of Ocean City and Atlantic City.
The impact is referred to by the agency as “take,” which refers to harassment or injury of animals.
“Ocean Wind did not request and (the National Marine Fisheries Service) neither expects nor authorizes incidental take by serious injury or mortality,” the agency wrote.
Opponents of offshore wind blame the deaths of 70 whales along the East Coast since December on offshore wind site preparation work.
But three federal scientific agencies say there is no evidence that such work is responsible for the deaths, about half of which have been attributed to vessel strikes.
NOAA is requiring Orsted to take a number of steps designed to avoid harm to whales, including a moratorium on the detonation of undersea explosives from Nov. 1 through April 30; visual and acoustic monitoring of the waters near such explosions before, during and after them; shutting down pile driving “if feasible” if an endangered North American right whale or other marine mammal enters certain prescribed zones; and noise mitigation steps including using the least amount of hammer force possible for foundation installations.
David Shanker, a spokesman for the Save the Right Whales Coalition, called the decision “appalling.”
The group recently sent NOAA the results of a study by an independent acoustics company asserting that offshore wind survey vessels have been exceeding approved decibel levels and appear to be using other-than-approved devices.
“There has been a complete breakdown in the system designed to protect marine wildlife and protect the North Atlantic right whale from extinction,” Shanker said.
NOAA declined comment.
Earlier this week, Republicans in the state Senate called for a moratorium on all offshore wind projects.
They asked for a special session of the Legislature to consider measures to prohibit further tax breaks for offshore wind companies beyond one already given to Orsted.
Senate Democrats declined comment.
On Wednesday, six protesters were arrested after they refused to leave a roadway in Ocean City where Orsted began onshore testing for its first wind farm project.
___
Follow Wayne Parry on X, formerly known as Twitter, at www.twitter.com/WayneParryAC
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... f758&ei=67
"Offshore wind energy plans advance in New Jersey amid opposition"
Story by WAYNE PARRY, Associated Press
15 SEPTEMBER 2023
ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. (AP) — Two major offshore wind power projects are taking steps forward in New Jersey as the owners of one project agreed to bring the federal government in on their environmental monitoring plans at an earlier stage than has ever been done, and federal regulators said plans for another project are not expected to kill or seriously injure marine life.
They come as New Jersey continues to grow as a hub of opposition to offshore wind projects from residents' groups and their political allies, mostly Republicans.
The state's Democratic governor and Democratic-controlled Legislature want to make the state the East Coast leader in offshore wind energy.
Community Offshore Wind, a joint venture between Essen, Germany-based RWE and New York-based National Grid Ventures, on Thursday announced a five-year partnership with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to promote the exchange of data and expertise on environmental monitoring for offshore wind projects.
The agreement will bring the federal agency into the company's planning process at a much earlier stage than is currently done in the offshore wind industry, an arrangement that could become the new industry standard, according to company president Doug Perkins.
“Instead of us coming up with this on our own and getting some feedback from the agencies, we will work together to make sure that it’s efficient in the data they collect,” he said.
“It creates the opportunity, the avenue for us to engage with them, and for them to engage with us, to make sure that our plans, how we’re sampling, where we’re sampling, when we’re sampling, fits with what they do and with what will be required of the industry.”
Jon Hare, director of NOAA's Northeast Fisheries Science Center, praised the proposed collaboration.
“With help from a number of collaborators and the fishing industry, our agency maintains some of the world’s most comprehensive data sets on large marine ecosystems,” he said.
“Our goal is to bring offshore wind energy monitoring activities into this partnership."
"This agreement is our first chance to make these partnerships a reality and show by example that effective scientific monitoring benefits everyone.”
Community has leased a 125,000 acre site 60 miles (97 kilometers) off Long Island, New York, and 37 miles (60 kilometers) off Little Egg Harbor in New Jersey.
Its project has yet to be designed but is likely to include at least 100 wind turbines. It could be active by 2030 or 2031, Perkins said.
On Wednesday, NOAA released a letter of authorization for Denmark-based Orsted's Ocean Wind I project in southern New Jersey.
It involved approval of plans for unintentional harassment or injury of marine mammals during construction of the project, which would build 98 turbines about 15 miles (24 kilometers) off the coast of Ocean City and Atlantic City.
The impact is referred to by the agency as “take,” which refers to harassment or injury of animals.
“Ocean Wind did not request and (the National Marine Fisheries Service) neither expects nor authorizes incidental take by serious injury or mortality,” the agency wrote.
Opponents of offshore wind blame the deaths of 70 whales along the East Coast since December on offshore wind site preparation work.
But three federal scientific agencies say there is no evidence that such work is responsible for the deaths, about half of which have been attributed to vessel strikes.
NOAA is requiring Orsted to take a number of steps designed to avoid harm to whales, including a moratorium on the detonation of undersea explosives from Nov. 1 through April 30; visual and acoustic monitoring of the waters near such explosions before, during and after them; shutting down pile driving “if feasible” if an endangered North American right whale or other marine mammal enters certain prescribed zones; and noise mitigation steps including using the least amount of hammer force possible for foundation installations.
David Shanker, a spokesman for the Save the Right Whales Coalition, called the decision “appalling.”
The group recently sent NOAA the results of a study by an independent acoustics company asserting that offshore wind survey vessels have been exceeding approved decibel levels and appear to be using other-than-approved devices.
“There has been a complete breakdown in the system designed to protect marine wildlife and protect the North Atlantic right whale from extinction,” Shanker said.
NOAA declined comment.
Earlier this week, Republicans in the state Senate called for a moratorium on all offshore wind projects.
They asked for a special session of the Legislature to consider measures to prohibit further tax breaks for offshore wind companies beyond one already given to Orsted.
Senate Democrats declined comment.
On Wednesday, six protesters were arrested after they refused to leave a roadway in Ocean City where Orsted began onshore testing for its first wind farm project.
___
Follow Wayne Parry on X, formerly known as Twitter, at www.twitter.com/WayneParryAC
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... f758&ei=67
Re: WINDMILLS AND SOLAR FARMS
REUTERS
"Biden’s offshore wind target slipping out of reach as projects struggle"
By Nichola Groom
September 15, 2023
Sept 15 (Reuters) - President Joe Biden’s goal to deploy 30,000 megawatts of offshore wind along U.S. coastlines this decade to fight climate change may be unattainable due to soaring costs and supply chain delays, according to forecasters and industry insiders.
The 2030 target, unveiled shortly after Biden took office, is central to Biden's broader plan to decarbonize the U.S. economy by 2050.
It is also crucial to targets of Northeast states hoping wind will help them move away from fossil fuel-fired electricity.
"It doesn't mean that there can't still be excellent progress towards this technology that's going to do great things for our nation," said Kris Ohleth, director of the Special Initiative on Offshore Wind, an independent organization that provides guidance and research to the industry.
"It's just not going to be that size by 2030."
"It's pretty clear at this point."
In recent months soaring materials costs, high interest rates and supply chain delays have led project developers including Orsted, Equinor, BP, Avangrid and Shell to cancel or seek to renegotiate power contracts for the first commercial-scale U.S. wind farms with operating start dates between 2025 and 2028.
Companies say they remain committed to the projects, which have a combined capacity of more than 6,000 megawatts.
Yet delays have resulted from the need to strike new contracts and secure specialized equipment in demand all over the world.
"The U.S. will not reach the 30 GW by 2030 target," Samantha Woodworth, North American wind analyst at Wood Mackenzie said in an email, citing "recent upheaval."
The energy research firm expects 21 GW of offshore wind along U.S. shores in 2030, breaking 30 GW by 2032.
Developers began raising doubts this summer.
"Thirty gigawatts is now unfortunately not something that the developers are really aspiring to," Michael Brown, U.S. country manager for Ocean Winds, an offshore wind joint venture between France's ENGIE and Portugal's EDP Renovaveis, said at a Reuters Events conference in July.
"We want to meet as high a gigawatt target as possible, but it's not going to be possible to meet those 30 GW."
Ocean Winds spokesperson Kelly Penot-Rousseau would not comment this week on Brown's remarks.
But in the two months since he spoke, the U.S. industry has suffered a string of additional blows.
Last month, an Ocean Winds-Shell project, SouthCoast Wind, agreed to pay $60 million to cancel contracts with Massachusetts utilities.
The same week, Orsted warned it could see impairments of $2.3 billion on three U.S. projects and the industry largely failed to show up for a Biden administration sale of offshore wind leases in the Gulf of Mexico.
White House spokesperson Michael Kikukawa said the administration "is using every legally available tool to advance American offshore wind opportunities and achieve the goal of 30 GW by 2030."
He noted industry investments have increased by $7.7 billion since Biden last year signed the Inflation Reduction Act, containing tax credits for clean energy.
Still, offshore wind developers including Orsted have said the IRA’s subsidies are insufficient for projects to thrive in the current environment, and are lobbying the administration for additional concessions.
STATESIDE SETBACK
Installing 30 GW of offshore wind by 2030, enough to power 10 million American homes, was an aggressive goal that sparked confidence in the market that the U.S. was serious about offshore wind after years of lagging Europe and Asia.
The nation currently has just two pilot-scale offshore wind farms capable of producing 42 megawatts of electricity.
In a U.S. Department of Energy report in 2022, just one of two independent forecasts predicted the U.S. would have at least 30 GW of offshore wind by 2030.
In this year's report, published last month, 2030 forecasts by market research firms 4C Offshore and BloombergNEF were ratcheted down to 26.6 GW and 23.3 GW, respectively.
Those levels lag installation forecasts for nations like China and the United Kingdom over the next decade, according to the DOE report.
DOE spokesperson Samah Shaiq said the 2030 goal "is still within striking distance" and the speed of development would depend on regulatory efficiency, availability of vessels and port infrastructure, grid planning and new turbine technology.
The administration is working on initiatives to address those issues, Shaiq added.
Northeastern states such as Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York need wind power to meet ambitious targets.
New York, for example, has a goal to power its grid with 70% renewable energy by 2030.
“The real reason that the Biden administration could set 2030 objectives for offshore wind is because of the U.S. northeastern states," said Doreen Harris, president of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), which is implementing the state's offshore wind mandate of 9 GW by 2035.
NYSERDA warned the state's utility regulator last month that delays in deploying offshore wind could threaten that target and asked the New York State Department of Public Service to approve price increases to contracts with Equinor, BP and Orsted.
Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources Commissioner Elizabeth Mahony said she was confident in the future of offshore wind.
The state has a target of procuring 5.6 GW of offshore wind contracts by 2027, with 2.8 GW in operation by 2030, according to the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs.
A spokesperson for the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities said the state was moving forward with solicitations to reach the state's goal of 11 GW of offshore wind by 2040.
Stephanie McClellan, executive director of the offshore wind advocacy group Turn Forward, said making sure the first fleet of projects succeeds was more important than a particular timeline.
"That's where the attention needs to be placed," she said.
"Not what's going to happen in 2030."
Reporting by Nichola Groom; Editing by David Gregorio
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy ... 023-09-15/
"Biden’s offshore wind target slipping out of reach as projects struggle"
By Nichola Groom
September 15, 2023
Sept 15 (Reuters) - President Joe Biden’s goal to deploy 30,000 megawatts of offshore wind along U.S. coastlines this decade to fight climate change may be unattainable due to soaring costs and supply chain delays, according to forecasters and industry insiders.
The 2030 target, unveiled shortly after Biden took office, is central to Biden's broader plan to decarbonize the U.S. economy by 2050.
It is also crucial to targets of Northeast states hoping wind will help them move away from fossil fuel-fired electricity.
"It doesn't mean that there can't still be excellent progress towards this technology that's going to do great things for our nation," said Kris Ohleth, director of the Special Initiative on Offshore Wind, an independent organization that provides guidance and research to the industry.
"It's just not going to be that size by 2030."
"It's pretty clear at this point."
In recent months soaring materials costs, high interest rates and supply chain delays have led project developers including Orsted, Equinor, BP, Avangrid and Shell to cancel or seek to renegotiate power contracts for the first commercial-scale U.S. wind farms with operating start dates between 2025 and 2028.
Companies say they remain committed to the projects, which have a combined capacity of more than 6,000 megawatts.
Yet delays have resulted from the need to strike new contracts and secure specialized equipment in demand all over the world.
"The U.S. will not reach the 30 GW by 2030 target," Samantha Woodworth, North American wind analyst at Wood Mackenzie said in an email, citing "recent upheaval."
The energy research firm expects 21 GW of offshore wind along U.S. shores in 2030, breaking 30 GW by 2032.
Developers began raising doubts this summer.
"Thirty gigawatts is now unfortunately not something that the developers are really aspiring to," Michael Brown, U.S. country manager for Ocean Winds, an offshore wind joint venture between France's ENGIE and Portugal's EDP Renovaveis, said at a Reuters Events conference in July.
"We want to meet as high a gigawatt target as possible, but it's not going to be possible to meet those 30 GW."
Ocean Winds spokesperson Kelly Penot-Rousseau would not comment this week on Brown's remarks.
But in the two months since he spoke, the U.S. industry has suffered a string of additional blows.
Last month, an Ocean Winds-Shell project, SouthCoast Wind, agreed to pay $60 million to cancel contracts with Massachusetts utilities.
The same week, Orsted warned it could see impairments of $2.3 billion on three U.S. projects and the industry largely failed to show up for a Biden administration sale of offshore wind leases in the Gulf of Mexico.
White House spokesperson Michael Kikukawa said the administration "is using every legally available tool to advance American offshore wind opportunities and achieve the goal of 30 GW by 2030."
He noted industry investments have increased by $7.7 billion since Biden last year signed the Inflation Reduction Act, containing tax credits for clean energy.
Still, offshore wind developers including Orsted have said the IRA’s subsidies are insufficient for projects to thrive in the current environment, and are lobbying the administration for additional concessions.
STATESIDE SETBACK
Installing 30 GW of offshore wind by 2030, enough to power 10 million American homes, was an aggressive goal that sparked confidence in the market that the U.S. was serious about offshore wind after years of lagging Europe and Asia.
The nation currently has just two pilot-scale offshore wind farms capable of producing 42 megawatts of electricity.
In a U.S. Department of Energy report in 2022, just one of two independent forecasts predicted the U.S. would have at least 30 GW of offshore wind by 2030.
In this year's report, published last month, 2030 forecasts by market research firms 4C Offshore and BloombergNEF were ratcheted down to 26.6 GW and 23.3 GW, respectively.
Those levels lag installation forecasts for nations like China and the United Kingdom over the next decade, according to the DOE report.
DOE spokesperson Samah Shaiq said the 2030 goal "is still within striking distance" and the speed of development would depend on regulatory efficiency, availability of vessels and port infrastructure, grid planning and new turbine technology.
The administration is working on initiatives to address those issues, Shaiq added.
Northeastern states such as Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York need wind power to meet ambitious targets.
New York, for example, has a goal to power its grid with 70% renewable energy by 2030.
“The real reason that the Biden administration could set 2030 objectives for offshore wind is because of the U.S. northeastern states," said Doreen Harris, president of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), which is implementing the state's offshore wind mandate of 9 GW by 2035.
NYSERDA warned the state's utility regulator last month that delays in deploying offshore wind could threaten that target and asked the New York State Department of Public Service to approve price increases to contracts with Equinor, BP and Orsted.
Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources Commissioner Elizabeth Mahony said she was confident in the future of offshore wind.
The state has a target of procuring 5.6 GW of offshore wind contracts by 2027, with 2.8 GW in operation by 2030, according to the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs.
A spokesperson for the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities said the state was moving forward with solicitations to reach the state's goal of 11 GW of offshore wind by 2040.
Stephanie McClellan, executive director of the offshore wind advocacy group Turn Forward, said making sure the first fleet of projects succeeds was more important than a particular timeline.
"That's where the attention needs to be placed," she said.
"Not what's going to happen in 2030."
Reporting by Nichola Groom; Editing by David Gregorio
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy ... 023-09-15/