FOX News
"Giant offshore wind project axed in blow to Biden's green goals"
Story by Thomas Catenacci
4 JANUARY 2024
Global energy developers Equinor and BP announced Wednesday they are canceling the contract for a massive wind project slated for construction off the coast of New York.
The two companies said they had reached an agreement with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) to terminate the offshore wind renewable energy certificate for their Empire Wind 2 project.
Equinor and BP explained that commercial conditions, namely inflation, interest rates and supply chain disruptions, prevented its contract for the project from remaining viable.
"Commercial viability is fundamental for ambitious projects of this size and scale."
"The Empire Wind 2 decision provides the opportunity to reset and develop a stronger and more robust project going forward," Molly Morris, president of Equinor Renewables Americas, said in a statement.
"We will continue to closely engage our many community partners across the state."
"BP is supportive of NYSERDA’s leadership and commitment to offshore wind, which we believe is a critical part of New York State’s and America’s clean energy future," added Joshua Weinstein, BP’s president of offshore wind Americas.
"Offshore wind can deliver reliable renewable power as well as economic benefits to the state and its communities."
The cancelation of Empire Wind 2 comes weeks after the Biden administration formally approved it and its counterpart, Empire Wind 1, in November.
The Department of the Interior (DOI) and Energy Department have both endorsed the project, while the White House has referred to it as a success story of "Bidenomics."
It also comes shortly after energy developer Orsted canceled its Ocean Wind 1 and Ocean Wind 2 twin projects which were also approved and hailed by the Biden administration.
Orsted also blamed negative economic conditions.
Together, Empire Wind 1 and 2 were projected to have a total capacity of 2,076 megawatts, enough to power 700,000 homes per year.
Empire Wind 2 was expected to account for the majority of that output and have a capacity of 1,260 megawatts.
"Under President Biden’s leadership, the American offshore wind industry is continuing to expand rapidly — creating good-paying union jobs across the manufacturing, shipbuilding and construction sectors," Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said on Nov. 21 after green-lighting Empire Wind 2.
"Today’s approval of the sixth offshore wind project adds to the significant progress towards our Administration’s clean energy goals."
DOI added that "Bidenomics and the President’s Investing in America agenda are growing the American economy from the middle out and bottom up."
The agency also said the Empire Wind projects would support President Biden's lofty green energy goals.
In 2021, Biden outlined goals to deploy 30 gigawatts of offshore wind energy by 2030, the most ambitious goal of its kind worldwide.
That same year, his administration approved the Vineyard Wind and Southfork Wind project, the first two large-scale offshore wind projects approved in U.S. history.
The November approval of the Empire Wind project marked the sixth such approval.
Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm announced the finalization of contracts between NYSERDA and Empire Wind's developers in January 2022.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... 99dd&ei=72
WINDMILLS AND SOLAR FARMS
Re: WINDMILLS AND SOLAR FARMS
GistFest
"Judge Orders Removal of Wind Farm in Osage County"
Story by GistFest
6 JANUARY 2024
The Osage Nation, its Mineral Council, and the federal government have been in a fight to prevent the erection of turbines in Osage County.
The battle has been on for the past 10 years.
So when U.S. Court of International Trade Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves issued a ruling ordering the removal of a wind farm, it was celebrated as a big win.
The judge’s ruling came in Tulsa federal court against Osage Wind LLC, Enel Kansas LLC, and Enel Green Power North America Inc.
It grants the United States and the Osage Nation permanent injunctive relief through its Minerals Council via “ejectment of the wind turbine farm for continuing trespass.”
The Minerals Council is an arm of the Osage Nation.
It manages the Osage Minerals Estate.
The ruling follows a 2017 appellate court ruling stipulating that the wind farm’s construction involves mining.
It also requires a lease from the Osage Nation’s Minerals Council.
Unfortunately, the defendants were unable to obtain it.
“The developers failed to acquire a mining lease during or after construction."
"As well as after issuance of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision holding that a mining lease was required,” Choe-Groves said.
“On the record before the Court, it is clear the Defendants are actively avoiding the leasing requirement,” she continued.
“Permitting such behavior would create the prospect for future interference with the Osage Mineral Council’s authority by Defendants."
"Or others wishing to develop the mineral lease."
“The Court concludes that Defendants’ past and continued refusal to obtain a lease constitutes interference with the sovereignty of the Osage Nation and is sufficient to constitute irreparable injury.”
Osage Minerals Council Chairman Everett Waller is happy with the outcome.
However, he has also confessed that the ruling still has him “stunned.”
“I hope no other tribe has to do what we had to do,” Waller said about the lengthy court battle.
“This is a win not only for the Osage Minerals Council; this is a win for Indian Country.”
The legal saga has been active for over a decade.
At one point, it even reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Osage Nation filed a federal lawsuit in October 2011.
They wanted to halt the erection of the wind farm, alleging that the project unlawfully deprived the Osage Nation of the right to develop the mineral estate.
The claims and the case were dismissed on merits.
The defendants started leasing surface rights for the project two years later.
The wind farm comprises 84 turbines spread across 8,400 acres of leased surface rights in Osage County, underground lines, overhead transmission lines, meteorological towers, and access roads.
Construction on the wind towers kicked off in October 2013.
The excavation for the towers started in September 2014.
The federal government filed a federal lawsuit in November 2014, pointing out that the defendants were involved in unauthorized mining and excavation in the Osage Mineral Estate.
The U.S. Department of the Interior administers the Osage Nation’s mineral rights.
Federal law demands that developers obtain a permit from the tribe’s Minerals Council to engage in any mining activity in the county.
A federal district judge initially ruled in favor of the wind farm project in 2015.
But the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver reversed that decision in a 2017 ruling.
Before arriving at her decision to issue a permanent injunction, Choe-Groves considered several factors.
And she, however, found none enough to make her consider going against the public interest.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/judge ... cb80&ei=39
"Judge Orders Removal of Wind Farm in Osage County"
Story by GistFest
6 JANUARY 2024
The Osage Nation, its Mineral Council, and the federal government have been in a fight to prevent the erection of turbines in Osage County.
The battle has been on for the past 10 years.
So when U.S. Court of International Trade Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves issued a ruling ordering the removal of a wind farm, it was celebrated as a big win.
The judge’s ruling came in Tulsa federal court against Osage Wind LLC, Enel Kansas LLC, and Enel Green Power North America Inc.
It grants the United States and the Osage Nation permanent injunctive relief through its Minerals Council via “ejectment of the wind turbine farm for continuing trespass.”
The Minerals Council is an arm of the Osage Nation.
It manages the Osage Minerals Estate.
The ruling follows a 2017 appellate court ruling stipulating that the wind farm’s construction involves mining.
It also requires a lease from the Osage Nation’s Minerals Council.
Unfortunately, the defendants were unable to obtain it.
“The developers failed to acquire a mining lease during or after construction."
"As well as after issuance of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision holding that a mining lease was required,” Choe-Groves said.
“On the record before the Court, it is clear the Defendants are actively avoiding the leasing requirement,” she continued.
“Permitting such behavior would create the prospect for future interference with the Osage Mineral Council’s authority by Defendants."
"Or others wishing to develop the mineral lease."
“The Court concludes that Defendants’ past and continued refusal to obtain a lease constitutes interference with the sovereignty of the Osage Nation and is sufficient to constitute irreparable injury.”
Osage Minerals Council Chairman Everett Waller is happy with the outcome.
However, he has also confessed that the ruling still has him “stunned.”
“I hope no other tribe has to do what we had to do,” Waller said about the lengthy court battle.
“This is a win not only for the Osage Minerals Council; this is a win for Indian Country.”
The legal saga has been active for over a decade.
At one point, it even reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Osage Nation filed a federal lawsuit in October 2011.
They wanted to halt the erection of the wind farm, alleging that the project unlawfully deprived the Osage Nation of the right to develop the mineral estate.
The claims and the case were dismissed on merits.
The defendants started leasing surface rights for the project two years later.
The wind farm comprises 84 turbines spread across 8,400 acres of leased surface rights in Osage County, underground lines, overhead transmission lines, meteorological towers, and access roads.
Construction on the wind towers kicked off in October 2013.
The excavation for the towers started in September 2014.
The federal government filed a federal lawsuit in November 2014, pointing out that the defendants were involved in unauthorized mining and excavation in the Osage Mineral Estate.
The U.S. Department of the Interior administers the Osage Nation’s mineral rights.
Federal law demands that developers obtain a permit from the tribe’s Minerals Council to engage in any mining activity in the county.
A federal district judge initially ruled in favor of the wind farm project in 2015.
But the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver reversed that decision in a 2017 ruling.
Before arriving at her decision to issue a permanent injunction, Choe-Groves considered several factors.
And she, however, found none enough to make her consider going against the public interest.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/judge ... cb80&ei=39
Re: WINDMILLS AND SOLAR FARMS
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JANUARY 9, 2024 AT 11:41 AM
Paul Plante says:
What is a shallow thinker?
According to Collins English Dictionary, it is an adjective applied to someone lacking intellectual or mental depth or subtlety; someone who is superficial, a shallow-minded Pollyanna.
A shallow thinker just looks at first-order consequences.
A deep thinker, on the other hand, looks at the whole chain of effects, impacts, and outcomes.
Shallow thinkers are incapable, and sometimes too lazy, to look at all sides of an issue or to explore the issues deeply before making judgment or decision.
Merriam-Webster answers the question “what is the meaning of shallow thinking” by telling us it means lacking in depth of knowledge, thought, or feeling, as in a “shallow demagogue,” and if anyone thinks I am talking about American DICTATOR Joseph Robinette Biden, Junior here, along with his commerce secretary Gina Marie Raimondo, born May 17, 1971, who is an American businesswoman, lawyer, politician, and venture capitalist, and his treasury secretary Janet “TOODLES” Yellen, and the rest of the people Joe has selected to surround him and advise him, like Tony Blinken and his witless sidekick Jake Sullivan, they are dead on the money, especially with respect to Joe, who is the ALPHA, the leader of that pack (cue The Shangri-Las – Leader of the Pack https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5vFOpVGjVc ).
As to the question “what is short-sighted thinking,” Cambridge Dictionary tells us that it means “not thinking enough about how an action will affect the future”
A related term, “psychological myopia,” which Joe Biden is quite clearly afflicted with, to our detriment as a nation and as a people, refers to the tendency in decision makers like Joe Biden to focus on information immediately related to their judgment and to ignore other, less prominent, pieces of information, so that because Joe Biden often ignores pieces of information in his decision-making processes, it makes him think short-sightedly, and it is we, the American people who are paying and will continue to pay the price for that that, and if anyone thinks otherwise, they are as short-sighted as is Joe Biden and his pack of self-serving idiots that he has surrounded himself with, which takes us to a Fox News article titled “Giant offshore wind project axed in blow to Biden’s green goals” by Thomas Catenacci on 4 January 2024, where we have this clear example of the toxic mix of short-sightedness and shallow thinking that permeates the Biden administration from bottom to the very top, to wit:
The cancelation of Empire Wind 2 comes weeks after the Biden administration formally approved it and its counterpart, Empire Wind 1, in November.
The Department of the Interior (DOI) and Energy Department have both endorsed the project, while the White House has referred to it as a success story of “Bidenomics.”
“Under President Biden’s leadership, the American offshore wind industry is continuing to expand rapidly — creating good-paying union jobs across the manufacturing, shipbuilding and construction sectors,” Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said on Nov. 21 after green-lighting Empire Wind 2.
“Today’s approval of the sixth offshore wind project adds to the significant progress towards our Administration’s clean energy goals.”
DOI added that “Bidenomics and the President’s Investing in America agenda are growing the American economy from the middle out and bottom up.”
The agency also said the Empire Wind projects would support President Biden’s lofty green energy goals.
end quotes
Except Joe Biden’s “lofty green energy goals,” which I refer to as Joe Biden’s INSANE GREEN DREAM, is and always was a PIPE DREAM (an unattainable or fanciful hope or plan), which takes us back to that article, to wit:
Global energy developers Equinor and BP announced Wednesday they are canceling the contract for a massive wind project slated for construction off the coast of New York.
The two companies said they had reached an agreement with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) to terminate the offshore wind renewable energy certificate for their Empire Wind 2 project.
Equinor and BP explained that commercial conditions, namely inflation, interest rates and supply chain disruptions, prevented its contract for the project from remaining viable.
end quotes
Yes, people, BIDENFLATION caused by BIDE-O-NOMICS coupled with HIGH INTEREST RATES as the federal reserve tries to fight the BIDENFLATION caused by BIDE-O-NOMICS, which takes us to this, to wit:
“Commercial viability is fundamental for ambitious projects of this size and scale.”
end quotes
And my goodness, people, who’d a thought it?
Certainly not Joe Biden, Jennifer Granholm and Deb Haaland, which again takes us back for more, to wit:
It also comes shortly after energy developer Orsted canceled its Ocean Wind 1 and Ocean Wind 2 twin projects which were also approved and hailed by the Biden administration.
Orsted also blamed negative economic conditions.
end quotes
And with that said, let’s head to a commercial break and a pause for station identification, but don’t change that dial, because if the dam don’t break, and the creek don’t rise, we will be right back with more about this FIASCO that is the administration of American DICTATOR Joseph Robinette Biden, Junior, the first of his name to be a DICTATOR anywhere in the world, so stay tuned!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/paul-p ... ent-891801
Paul Plante says:
What is a shallow thinker?
According to Collins English Dictionary, it is an adjective applied to someone lacking intellectual or mental depth or subtlety; someone who is superficial, a shallow-minded Pollyanna.
A shallow thinker just looks at first-order consequences.
A deep thinker, on the other hand, looks at the whole chain of effects, impacts, and outcomes.
Shallow thinkers are incapable, and sometimes too lazy, to look at all sides of an issue or to explore the issues deeply before making judgment or decision.
Merriam-Webster answers the question “what is the meaning of shallow thinking” by telling us it means lacking in depth of knowledge, thought, or feeling, as in a “shallow demagogue,” and if anyone thinks I am talking about American DICTATOR Joseph Robinette Biden, Junior here, along with his commerce secretary Gina Marie Raimondo, born May 17, 1971, who is an American businesswoman, lawyer, politician, and venture capitalist, and his treasury secretary Janet “TOODLES” Yellen, and the rest of the people Joe has selected to surround him and advise him, like Tony Blinken and his witless sidekick Jake Sullivan, they are dead on the money, especially with respect to Joe, who is the ALPHA, the leader of that pack (cue The Shangri-Las – Leader of the Pack https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5vFOpVGjVc ).
As to the question “what is short-sighted thinking,” Cambridge Dictionary tells us that it means “not thinking enough about how an action will affect the future”
A related term, “psychological myopia,” which Joe Biden is quite clearly afflicted with, to our detriment as a nation and as a people, refers to the tendency in decision makers like Joe Biden to focus on information immediately related to their judgment and to ignore other, less prominent, pieces of information, so that because Joe Biden often ignores pieces of information in his decision-making processes, it makes him think short-sightedly, and it is we, the American people who are paying and will continue to pay the price for that that, and if anyone thinks otherwise, they are as short-sighted as is Joe Biden and his pack of self-serving idiots that he has surrounded himself with, which takes us to a Fox News article titled “Giant offshore wind project axed in blow to Biden’s green goals” by Thomas Catenacci on 4 January 2024, where we have this clear example of the toxic mix of short-sightedness and shallow thinking that permeates the Biden administration from bottom to the very top, to wit:
The cancelation of Empire Wind 2 comes weeks after the Biden administration formally approved it and its counterpart, Empire Wind 1, in November.
The Department of the Interior (DOI) and Energy Department have both endorsed the project, while the White House has referred to it as a success story of “Bidenomics.”
“Under President Biden’s leadership, the American offshore wind industry is continuing to expand rapidly — creating good-paying union jobs across the manufacturing, shipbuilding and construction sectors,” Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said on Nov. 21 after green-lighting Empire Wind 2.
“Today’s approval of the sixth offshore wind project adds to the significant progress towards our Administration’s clean energy goals.”
DOI added that “Bidenomics and the President’s Investing in America agenda are growing the American economy from the middle out and bottom up.”
The agency also said the Empire Wind projects would support President Biden’s lofty green energy goals.
end quotes
Except Joe Biden’s “lofty green energy goals,” which I refer to as Joe Biden’s INSANE GREEN DREAM, is and always was a PIPE DREAM (an unattainable or fanciful hope or plan), which takes us back to that article, to wit:
Global energy developers Equinor and BP announced Wednesday they are canceling the contract for a massive wind project slated for construction off the coast of New York.
The two companies said they had reached an agreement with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) to terminate the offshore wind renewable energy certificate for their Empire Wind 2 project.
Equinor and BP explained that commercial conditions, namely inflation, interest rates and supply chain disruptions, prevented its contract for the project from remaining viable.
end quotes
Yes, people, BIDENFLATION caused by BIDE-O-NOMICS coupled with HIGH INTEREST RATES as the federal reserve tries to fight the BIDENFLATION caused by BIDE-O-NOMICS, which takes us to this, to wit:
“Commercial viability is fundamental for ambitious projects of this size and scale.”
end quotes
And my goodness, people, who’d a thought it?
Certainly not Joe Biden, Jennifer Granholm and Deb Haaland, which again takes us back for more, to wit:
It also comes shortly after energy developer Orsted canceled its Ocean Wind 1 and Ocean Wind 2 twin projects which were also approved and hailed by the Biden administration.
Orsted also blamed negative economic conditions.
end quotes
And with that said, let’s head to a commercial break and a pause for station identification, but don’t change that dial, because if the dam don’t break, and the creek don’t rise, we will be right back with more about this FIASCO that is the administration of American DICTATOR Joseph Robinette Biden, Junior, the first of his name to be a DICTATOR anywhere in the world, so stay tuned!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/paul-p ... ent-891801
Re: WINDMILLS AND SOLAR FARMS
FOX News
"Major wind project was dependent on Biden admin waiving taxpayer safeguard: internal docs"
Story by Thomas Catenacci
15 JANUARY 2024
EXCLUSIVE: A Massachusetts wind project, which recently became the first utility-scale offshore wind project to deliver electricity to the grid, wouldn't have been financially viable if the Biden administration hadn't intervened, according to internal documents reviewed by Fox News Digital.
Federal officials with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) acknowledged in the unearthed communications shared with Fox News Digital that granting a waiver on development fees designed to safeguard taxpayers was "critical" for the 800-megawatt Vineyard Wind project.
BOEM ultimately waived the financial assurance for decommissioning costs fee for the project in June 2021.
"The more we dig into the details of the Vineyard Wind project the more concerning it becomes."
"The Biden administration brags that this is the first utility-scale offshore wind project."
"But clearly, without BOEM contorting the approval process and waiving requirements meant to protect taxpayers, Vineyard is unlikely to ever have gotten off the ground," Michael Chamberlain, the director of watchdog group Protect the Public's Trust (PPT), which obtained the documents, told Fox News Digital.
"Both BOEM and the developer have admitted as much."
"This situation does not bode well," Chamberlain continued.
"If government has to bend the rules to make these projects feasible, it's just a matter of time before the 'clean energy transition' is dead in the water."
"The only questions may be how many taxpayer resources are put at risk and how much of the American public’s trust is squandered before it happens."
On June 15, 2021, BOEM Office of Renewable Energy Programs Chief James Bennett sent a letter to Vineyard Wind's developer, informing the firm that the agency had approved a March 2021 request to waive the fee.
Under the action, Vineyard Wind isn't required to pay the development fee until 15 years after the project enters operations under its 20-year power purchase agreements.
Vineyard Wind first submitted the request in December 2017, but the Trump administration rejected it, forcing the developer to resubmit it in March 2021.
Federal statute mandates that developers pay the fee prior to construction on their lease, a potentially hefty fee designed to guarantee federal property is returned to its original state after a lessee departs its lease.
In addition, Meredith Lilley, an energy program specialist at BOEM's Office of Renewable Energy Programs, acknowledged in an internal email also on June 15, 2021, that waiving the fee by August 2021 was vital to ensure Vineyard Wind could maintain financial viability.
The move notably came one month before BOEM approved the project's construction and operations plan.
"Issuing a decision to Vineyard Wind on this request is critical to enabling them to carry on with the Vineyard Wind 1 Project because it is a key determinant of the project’s value, which Vineyard Wind needs to know now in order to secure financing and achieve financial close in early August," Lilley wrote in the email to other federal officials involved in internal deliberations.
And according to Bennett, BOEM waived the fee because the project included risk reduction factors, including insurance policies to cover damages, use of proven wind turbine technology, and the use of power purchase agreements "with guaranteed electricity sales prices that, coupled with the consistent supply of wind energy, ensure a predictable income over the life of the project."
The letter also stated that the "regulatory departure" would reduce Vineyard Wind's financial assurance burden, enabling the developer to invest freed-up capital in construction and enabling the project to enter operations sooner.
In addition, it explained the fee was waived also because it "promotes the production and transmission of energy from a source other than oil and gas."
"In 2021, per its regulatory authority, BOEM approved Vineyard Wind 1’s request to defer providing the full amount of its decommissioning financial assurance until year 15 of actual operations under its 20-year Power Purchase Agreement for the Vineyard Wind 1 offshore wind energy project offshore Massachusetts," a BOEM spokesperson told Fox News Digital in a statement.
"BOEM deferred this requirement for Vineyard Wind 1 with the condition that such financial assurance would be provided in full during a time when the project risk is low — that is, during the time when the offshore wind lessee has guaranteed financial support through an assured price for the electricity generated by the project," the spokesperson added.
The revelation comes days after Vineyard Wind's developers, lawmakers and environmental groups celebrated the project beginning to send electricity to the grid.
The milestone was achieved after one wind turbine entered operations at the offshore site which will eventually host 62 turbines.
After the turbine began producing electricity on Jan. 2, the Sierra Club said the project "will aid tremendously in reducing dangerous fossil fuel air pollution" and fellow eco group the Conservation Law Foundation added that "New England’s transition away from polluting fossil fuels and towards clean, renewable energy is underway in earnest."
"They've made it very, very clear that they will approve these projects really regardless of anything," Meghan Lapp, the fisheries liaison for Rhode Island-based fishing company Seafreeze, told Fox News Digital in an interview.
"They don't care about the impacts to fishing communities," she added.
"They don't care about the impacts to coastal communities."
"They don't care about the impacts to marine mammals."
"Even though there's a lot of regulation on all of these other things and all of those other spheres, offshore wind gets a pass."
Lapp's company Seafreeze is spearheading a lawsuit against Vineyard Wind over the project's impacts on the fishing industry, the environment and coastal communities.
Lapp expressed concern that, if the case leads to a court order to remove the project's turbines, there will be no funds for that removal operation given BOEM's waiver.
"If we win, we want those turbines gone."
"We want them taken out," she said.
"The entire time, throughout the regulatory process for all of these wind farms, the federal government keeps saying, 'Don't worry, there are decommissioning funds.'"
"Well, now come to find out there are no decommissioning funds for Vineyard Wind."
"If we win the case, who's going to take them out?"
"And that's a big, big problem."
Vineyard Wind — which is a joint venture between Danish energy developer Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners and New England utility services company Avangrid — was first proposed years ago, but was fast-tracked once President Biden entered office.
In May 2021, the Department of the Interior (DOI) formally approved the project, marking the first utility-scale offshore wind farm to receive federal approval.
Then, in July 2021, BOEM approved Vineyard Wind's construction and operations plan and, four months later, DOI Secretary Deb Haaland joined then-Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker and other officials for the commemorative groundbreaking of the project in Barnstable, Massachusetts.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/major ... 6e5b&ei=94
"Major wind project was dependent on Biden admin waiving taxpayer safeguard: internal docs"
Story by Thomas Catenacci
15 JANUARY 2024
EXCLUSIVE: A Massachusetts wind project, which recently became the first utility-scale offshore wind project to deliver electricity to the grid, wouldn't have been financially viable if the Biden administration hadn't intervened, according to internal documents reviewed by Fox News Digital.
Federal officials with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) acknowledged in the unearthed communications shared with Fox News Digital that granting a waiver on development fees designed to safeguard taxpayers was "critical" for the 800-megawatt Vineyard Wind project.
BOEM ultimately waived the financial assurance for decommissioning costs fee for the project in June 2021.
"The more we dig into the details of the Vineyard Wind project the more concerning it becomes."
"The Biden administration brags that this is the first utility-scale offshore wind project."
"But clearly, without BOEM contorting the approval process and waiving requirements meant to protect taxpayers, Vineyard is unlikely to ever have gotten off the ground," Michael Chamberlain, the director of watchdog group Protect the Public's Trust (PPT), which obtained the documents, told Fox News Digital.
"Both BOEM and the developer have admitted as much."
"This situation does not bode well," Chamberlain continued.
"If government has to bend the rules to make these projects feasible, it's just a matter of time before the 'clean energy transition' is dead in the water."
"The only questions may be how many taxpayer resources are put at risk and how much of the American public’s trust is squandered before it happens."
On June 15, 2021, BOEM Office of Renewable Energy Programs Chief James Bennett sent a letter to Vineyard Wind's developer, informing the firm that the agency had approved a March 2021 request to waive the fee.
Under the action, Vineyard Wind isn't required to pay the development fee until 15 years after the project enters operations under its 20-year power purchase agreements.
Vineyard Wind first submitted the request in December 2017, but the Trump administration rejected it, forcing the developer to resubmit it in March 2021.
Federal statute mandates that developers pay the fee prior to construction on their lease, a potentially hefty fee designed to guarantee federal property is returned to its original state after a lessee departs its lease.
In addition, Meredith Lilley, an energy program specialist at BOEM's Office of Renewable Energy Programs, acknowledged in an internal email also on June 15, 2021, that waiving the fee by August 2021 was vital to ensure Vineyard Wind could maintain financial viability.
The move notably came one month before BOEM approved the project's construction and operations plan.
"Issuing a decision to Vineyard Wind on this request is critical to enabling them to carry on with the Vineyard Wind 1 Project because it is a key determinant of the project’s value, which Vineyard Wind needs to know now in order to secure financing and achieve financial close in early August," Lilley wrote in the email to other federal officials involved in internal deliberations.
And according to Bennett, BOEM waived the fee because the project included risk reduction factors, including insurance policies to cover damages, use of proven wind turbine technology, and the use of power purchase agreements "with guaranteed electricity sales prices that, coupled with the consistent supply of wind energy, ensure a predictable income over the life of the project."
The letter also stated that the "regulatory departure" would reduce Vineyard Wind's financial assurance burden, enabling the developer to invest freed-up capital in construction and enabling the project to enter operations sooner.
In addition, it explained the fee was waived also because it "promotes the production and transmission of energy from a source other than oil and gas."
"In 2021, per its regulatory authority, BOEM approved Vineyard Wind 1’s request to defer providing the full amount of its decommissioning financial assurance until year 15 of actual operations under its 20-year Power Purchase Agreement for the Vineyard Wind 1 offshore wind energy project offshore Massachusetts," a BOEM spokesperson told Fox News Digital in a statement.
"BOEM deferred this requirement for Vineyard Wind 1 with the condition that such financial assurance would be provided in full during a time when the project risk is low — that is, during the time when the offshore wind lessee has guaranteed financial support through an assured price for the electricity generated by the project," the spokesperson added.
The revelation comes days after Vineyard Wind's developers, lawmakers and environmental groups celebrated the project beginning to send electricity to the grid.
The milestone was achieved after one wind turbine entered operations at the offshore site which will eventually host 62 turbines.
After the turbine began producing electricity on Jan. 2, the Sierra Club said the project "will aid tremendously in reducing dangerous fossil fuel air pollution" and fellow eco group the Conservation Law Foundation added that "New England’s transition away from polluting fossil fuels and towards clean, renewable energy is underway in earnest."
"They've made it very, very clear that they will approve these projects really regardless of anything," Meghan Lapp, the fisheries liaison for Rhode Island-based fishing company Seafreeze, told Fox News Digital in an interview.
"They don't care about the impacts to fishing communities," she added.
"They don't care about the impacts to coastal communities."
"They don't care about the impacts to marine mammals."
"Even though there's a lot of regulation on all of these other things and all of those other spheres, offshore wind gets a pass."
Lapp's company Seafreeze is spearheading a lawsuit against Vineyard Wind over the project's impacts on the fishing industry, the environment and coastal communities.
Lapp expressed concern that, if the case leads to a court order to remove the project's turbines, there will be no funds for that removal operation given BOEM's waiver.
"If we win, we want those turbines gone."
"We want them taken out," she said.
"The entire time, throughout the regulatory process for all of these wind farms, the federal government keeps saying, 'Don't worry, there are decommissioning funds.'"
"Well, now come to find out there are no decommissioning funds for Vineyard Wind."
"If we win the case, who's going to take them out?"
"And that's a big, big problem."
Vineyard Wind — which is a joint venture between Danish energy developer Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners and New England utility services company Avangrid — was first proposed years ago, but was fast-tracked once President Biden entered office.
In May 2021, the Department of the Interior (DOI) formally approved the project, marking the first utility-scale offshore wind farm to receive federal approval.
Then, in July 2021, BOEM approved Vineyard Wind's construction and operations plan and, four months later, DOI Secretary Deb Haaland joined then-Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker and other officials for the commemorative groundbreaking of the project in Barnstable, Massachusetts.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/major ... 6e5b&ei=94
Re: WINDMILLS AND SOLAR FARMS
The Telegraph
"The Texas power grid is on the verge of another fatal collapse. Green energy is absent"
Opinion by David Blackmon
17 JANUARY 2024
The situation on the Texas power grid this week is going to be a crucial test not just for the grid’s managers at ERCOT (Electric Reliability Council of Texas), but also for natural gas suppliers and generators.
As weather conditions continued to evolve and deteriorate across the state, ERCOT has issued a conservation request to business and private customers to be in effect from 6am to 10am CST, a time of peak power demand and low renewable production.
ERCOT’s request blamed the latest failure of the state’s huge wind industry on “unseasonably low wind” conditions, but the reality that the wind tends to die down as temperatures drop is one of the most open secrets in the history of weather.
ERCOT officials cannot control weather conditions, obviously, but they can anticipate they will get a lot less wind contribution than their models predict whenever the weather is not ideal.
That’s just a given.
Equally obvious is the fact that they will get zero generation from the state’s ballyhooed solar farms when the sun isn’t shining, and ERCOT’s managers should have learned last summer that the battery storage facilities will also fail to deliver much whenever the weather is too hot or, as it is this week, too cold.
The state’s generation mix taken from ERCOT’s app at 7:19am.
Monday tells that story pretty clearly.
What we see is 0 per cent contribution from solar, 0.8 per cent from power storage, and just 6.8 per cent from wind.
Meanwhile, the “fossil fuels” so detested by the state’s legacy media sites were kicking in 84.9 per cent of total generation, with a whopping 67.2 per cent coming from the state’s natural gas industry.
So, as is always the case on the Texas grid despite all the renewables-boosting propaganda from the state and national media, the situation for consumers will come down to whether natural gas producers can keep their wells pumping, natural gas pipeline companies can keep the gas flowing through their pipelines, and natural gas power generators can prevent their plants from freezing up.
A lot of that failed to happen during Winter Storm Uri in February, 2021, and massive blackouts lasting for days at a time resulted in the deaths of 300 or more of my fellow Texans.
The problem was made a lot worse back then because ERCOT turned off the electricity to wells, compressors, and pipelines.
ERCOT, Texas regulators, and the industry itself have worked to get grid-critical sites properly identified since 2021 to prevent that mistake from happening again.
If that claim is accurate, then the grid should be able to maintain service to all Texas customers during this severe weather event.
If that claim is not accurate, then there could be trouble.
But the bottom line here in either event is clear: The success or failure of the Texas power grid when the chips are down is entirely related to the performance not of renewables, but natural gas.
This is a time for the industry to shine.
All Texans should be grateful to the thousands of men and women working in the gas industry to make that happen.
David Blackmon had a 40 year career in the US energy industry, the last 23 years of which were spent in the public policy arena, managing regulatory and legislative issues for various companies. He continues to write and podcast on energy matters
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... ca80&ei=70
"The Texas power grid is on the verge of another fatal collapse. Green energy is absent"
Opinion by David Blackmon
17 JANUARY 2024
The situation on the Texas power grid this week is going to be a crucial test not just for the grid’s managers at ERCOT (Electric Reliability Council of Texas), but also for natural gas suppliers and generators.
As weather conditions continued to evolve and deteriorate across the state, ERCOT has issued a conservation request to business and private customers to be in effect from 6am to 10am CST, a time of peak power demand and low renewable production.
ERCOT’s request blamed the latest failure of the state’s huge wind industry on “unseasonably low wind” conditions, but the reality that the wind tends to die down as temperatures drop is one of the most open secrets in the history of weather.
ERCOT officials cannot control weather conditions, obviously, but they can anticipate they will get a lot less wind contribution than their models predict whenever the weather is not ideal.
That’s just a given.
Equally obvious is the fact that they will get zero generation from the state’s ballyhooed solar farms when the sun isn’t shining, and ERCOT’s managers should have learned last summer that the battery storage facilities will also fail to deliver much whenever the weather is too hot or, as it is this week, too cold.
The state’s generation mix taken from ERCOT’s app at 7:19am.
Monday tells that story pretty clearly.
What we see is 0 per cent contribution from solar, 0.8 per cent from power storage, and just 6.8 per cent from wind.
Meanwhile, the “fossil fuels” so detested by the state’s legacy media sites were kicking in 84.9 per cent of total generation, with a whopping 67.2 per cent coming from the state’s natural gas industry.
So, as is always the case on the Texas grid despite all the renewables-boosting propaganda from the state and national media, the situation for consumers will come down to whether natural gas producers can keep their wells pumping, natural gas pipeline companies can keep the gas flowing through their pipelines, and natural gas power generators can prevent their plants from freezing up.
A lot of that failed to happen during Winter Storm Uri in February, 2021, and massive blackouts lasting for days at a time resulted in the deaths of 300 or more of my fellow Texans.
The problem was made a lot worse back then because ERCOT turned off the electricity to wells, compressors, and pipelines.
ERCOT, Texas regulators, and the industry itself have worked to get grid-critical sites properly identified since 2021 to prevent that mistake from happening again.
If that claim is accurate, then the grid should be able to maintain service to all Texas customers during this severe weather event.
If that claim is not accurate, then there could be trouble.
But the bottom line here in either event is clear: The success or failure of the Texas power grid when the chips are down is entirely related to the performance not of renewables, but natural gas.
This is a time for the industry to shine.
All Texans should be grateful to the thousands of men and women working in the gas industry to make that happen.
David Blackmon had a 40 year career in the US energy industry, the last 23 years of which were spent in the public policy arena, managing regulatory and legislative issues for various companies. He continues to write and podcast on energy matters
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... ca80&ei=70
Re: WINDMILLS AND SOLAR FARMS
The Western Journal
"GOP Rep Takes Video in Middle of Wind Farm, Demolishes the Left's Renewable Energy Narrative"
Story by Laura Wellington
18 JANUARY 2024
Where is the rationale for saving a planet when you are making it impossible to live on it by those you are saving it for?
The aggressive nature of the climate agenda has no common sense attached.
I don’t know one person who doesn’t want to add to the survival and livability of the earth.
Reality speaks, however, on green energy, the Biden administration has put the cart before the horse.
And soon that will be our only mode of transportation if they have their way.
I say this humorously, but truthfully, we aren’t too far off.
In a recent video shared by Rep. Matt Rosendale, a Montana Republican, he showed us the realities of wind energy in extreme temperatures.
As he walked along the outer perimeters of a wind turbine farm in Judith Gap, in central Montana, in negative-30 degree weather, Rosendale offered footage of what happens to wind turbines in this type of cold.
They stop working.
Not one turns.
“My house still needs heat today,” the congressman said.
It’s -30 degrees here in MT at the wind farm in Judith Gap this morning, and not a single wind turbine is turning.
Coal, oil, and natural gas are necessary now and for the foreseeable future to supply our base load electric needs! pic.twitter.com/kJhvFzd9yB
— Matt Rosendale (@RepRosendale) January 13, 2024
For those who rely on these wind turbines to work in order to heat their homes, forced reliance equates with death.
“When it’s 30 degrees below zero, wind turbines don’t turn, folks,” Rosendale said.
People will freeze to death.
I guess that is the sacrifice Biden and his climate czars expect Americans to make in order to ensure the planet survives an extra year or two.
Of course, Americans may no longer be around to see it.
China will.
According to the website statista, “China has been the largest coal polluter worldwide since 1990.”
China is first in the number of operational coal power plants worldwide to date -- 1,142 on mainland China alone.
In other words, “China accounts for over 50 percent of total global coal electricity generation.”
Chinese President Xi Jinping doesn’t care about polluting the world’s air so long as his people stay warm and China continues to march forward.
At the same time, reliance for Americans upon this energy remains consistent despite all efforts to prevent the United States from relying on our own resources.
Through his video, Rosendale clearly places this in perspective.
He isn’t content on allowing the lunacy to continue only to put American lives in harms’ way.
“It’s -30 degrees here in MT at the wind farm in Judith Gap this morning, and not a single wind turbine is turning,” said Rep. Rosendale.
“Coal, oil, and natural gas are necessary now and for the foreseeable future to supply our base load electric needs!”
In other words, “Drill, baby, drill,” as Trump put it at a 2022 town hall.
Where the Biden energy agenda has become so outlandish that it has “emboldened the International Energy Agency and some private sector analysts to start talking about the likelihood of 'peak oil' demand before 2030,” according to the U.K. Telegraph, Trump will undoubtedly reverse course to the degree he needs to for stabilization and economic expansion in the United States.
Since climate has become a factor in the culture war around the world, notwithstanding in our own country, the misleading element between the left and the right is that the right doesn’t care anything about it, that we aren’t in agreement that the planet means something to all of us.
The true difference is the reality factored in.
According to Politico, Utah Congressman John Curtis, a Republican, agrees with Rosendale and states, “Republicans have solutions to reduce world emissions while providing affordable, reliable, and clean energy to our allies across the globe."
In other words, we also want to do our part but we still have to live as we are doing it.
The road to increasing green energy isn’t black or white.
The lengths the Biden administration demands are simply premature and dangerous.
They are also fostering an unnecessary divide while playing on the naive and well-intentioned people, the same ones who have no idea why their electric vehicles won’t drive as far in cold temperatures (if they can be driven at all).
Speculating that most who purchased electric vehicles probably didn’t take mechanics class in high school, they undoubtedly joined dozens of Tesla vehicle owners who abandoned their vehicles at the Tesla supercharging station in Oak Brook, Illinois.
Rather than freeze to death, each driver walked away, undoubtedly frustrated and having learned the hard way why political representatives like Rosendale and Curtis aren’t hopping on board with the climate activists invading our government willy-nilly.
They can’t.
And they are saving Americans’ lives and the United States overall because they won’t.
“I’d say it’s pretty necessary to have energy on a day like this so you can keep your home heated,” Rosendale said in the video.
It isn’t the green agenda that is representing the best interests of U.S. citizens but the responsible agenda, the one that refuses to stick its head in the sand as it pushes the green button.
Enacting future sources of energy is simply a methodical, evolving process we just can't get around.
Quickening it beyond reality and capacity will only end up delaying its fruition.
Reliable energy is where we need to be currently.
And Rosendale did a great job of showing all Americans the truth in his video.
Sometimes you simply need to see it to believe.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 38f9&ei=19
"GOP Rep Takes Video in Middle of Wind Farm, Demolishes the Left's Renewable Energy Narrative"
Story by Laura Wellington
18 JANUARY 2024
Where is the rationale for saving a planet when you are making it impossible to live on it by those you are saving it for?
The aggressive nature of the climate agenda has no common sense attached.
I don’t know one person who doesn’t want to add to the survival and livability of the earth.
Reality speaks, however, on green energy, the Biden administration has put the cart before the horse.
And soon that will be our only mode of transportation if they have their way.
I say this humorously, but truthfully, we aren’t too far off.
In a recent video shared by Rep. Matt Rosendale, a Montana Republican, he showed us the realities of wind energy in extreme temperatures.
As he walked along the outer perimeters of a wind turbine farm in Judith Gap, in central Montana, in negative-30 degree weather, Rosendale offered footage of what happens to wind turbines in this type of cold.
They stop working.
Not one turns.
“My house still needs heat today,” the congressman said.
It’s -30 degrees here in MT at the wind farm in Judith Gap this morning, and not a single wind turbine is turning.
Coal, oil, and natural gas are necessary now and for the foreseeable future to supply our base load electric needs! pic.twitter.com/kJhvFzd9yB
— Matt Rosendale (@RepRosendale) January 13, 2024
For those who rely on these wind turbines to work in order to heat their homes, forced reliance equates with death.
“When it’s 30 degrees below zero, wind turbines don’t turn, folks,” Rosendale said.
People will freeze to death.
I guess that is the sacrifice Biden and his climate czars expect Americans to make in order to ensure the planet survives an extra year or two.
Of course, Americans may no longer be around to see it.
China will.
According to the website statista, “China has been the largest coal polluter worldwide since 1990.”
China is first in the number of operational coal power plants worldwide to date -- 1,142 on mainland China alone.
In other words, “China accounts for over 50 percent of total global coal electricity generation.”
Chinese President Xi Jinping doesn’t care about polluting the world’s air so long as his people stay warm and China continues to march forward.
At the same time, reliance for Americans upon this energy remains consistent despite all efforts to prevent the United States from relying on our own resources.
Through his video, Rosendale clearly places this in perspective.
He isn’t content on allowing the lunacy to continue only to put American lives in harms’ way.
“It’s -30 degrees here in MT at the wind farm in Judith Gap this morning, and not a single wind turbine is turning,” said Rep. Rosendale.
“Coal, oil, and natural gas are necessary now and for the foreseeable future to supply our base load electric needs!”
In other words, “Drill, baby, drill,” as Trump put it at a 2022 town hall.
Where the Biden energy agenda has become so outlandish that it has “emboldened the International Energy Agency and some private sector analysts to start talking about the likelihood of 'peak oil' demand before 2030,” according to the U.K. Telegraph, Trump will undoubtedly reverse course to the degree he needs to for stabilization and economic expansion in the United States.
Since climate has become a factor in the culture war around the world, notwithstanding in our own country, the misleading element between the left and the right is that the right doesn’t care anything about it, that we aren’t in agreement that the planet means something to all of us.
The true difference is the reality factored in.
According to Politico, Utah Congressman John Curtis, a Republican, agrees with Rosendale and states, “Republicans have solutions to reduce world emissions while providing affordable, reliable, and clean energy to our allies across the globe."
In other words, we also want to do our part but we still have to live as we are doing it.
The road to increasing green energy isn’t black or white.
The lengths the Biden administration demands are simply premature and dangerous.
They are also fostering an unnecessary divide while playing on the naive and well-intentioned people, the same ones who have no idea why their electric vehicles won’t drive as far in cold temperatures (if they can be driven at all).
Speculating that most who purchased electric vehicles probably didn’t take mechanics class in high school, they undoubtedly joined dozens of Tesla vehicle owners who abandoned their vehicles at the Tesla supercharging station in Oak Brook, Illinois.
Rather than freeze to death, each driver walked away, undoubtedly frustrated and having learned the hard way why political representatives like Rosendale and Curtis aren’t hopping on board with the climate activists invading our government willy-nilly.
They can’t.
And they are saving Americans’ lives and the United States overall because they won’t.
“I’d say it’s pretty necessary to have energy on a day like this so you can keep your home heated,” Rosendale said in the video.
It isn’t the green agenda that is representing the best interests of U.S. citizens but the responsible agenda, the one that refuses to stick its head in the sand as it pushes the green button.
Enacting future sources of energy is simply a methodical, evolving process we just can't get around.
Quickening it beyond reality and capacity will only end up delaying its fruition.
Reliable energy is where we need to be currently.
And Rosendale did a great job of showing all Americans the truth in his video.
Sometimes you simply need to see it to believe.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 38f9&ei=19
Re: WINDMILLS AND SOLAR FARMS
The Telegraph
"Energy bills must rise to pay for net zero, says Siemens Energy boss"
Story by Matt Oliver, Szu Ping Chan
22 JANUARY 2024
The German boss of Britain’s biggest wind turbine maker has warned energy bills will have to keep rising to pay for the green transition as he attacked “fairytale” thinking about net zero.
Joe Kaeser, chairman of Siemens Energy, suggested higher energy bills were inevitable as turbine makers grapple with huge losses, forcing them to pass on costs to their customers.
The company is the owner of the UK’s biggest wind turbine manufacturing site, in Hull, and employs thousands of British workers.
Mr Kaeser said manufacturers had become locked in a harmful “rat race” to build ever-bigger turbines and claimed developers and governments were in denial about the costs this entailed.
He also warned that inflation is battering industry balance sheets and warned of separate growing problems with faults and breakdowns in the sector.
Mr Kaeser told The Telegraph: “Every transformation comes at a cost and every transformation is painful."
"And that’s something which the energy industry and the public sector - governments - don’t really want to hear.
“I believe that for a while [customers] need to accept higher pricing.
“And then there might be innovation – about the weight of the blades, other efficiency methods, technology – so the cost can then go down again.
“But the point is, if there is no profit pool in an industry, why should that industry innovate?”
His comments come after the UK Government bowed to industry pressure in November and increased the power prices offered in future renewable energy auctions, after a competition in the summer received no bids from offshore wind developers.
The earlier auction flop triggered serious doubts that the UK would be able to meet its target of 50 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030.
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Mr Kaeser criticised what he described as “a lot of big mouths but little action” that had gone on for years in the wind industry.
Governments and developers are failing to follow through on their own green transition promises quickly enough, he said, while many are reluctant to admit the full costs of their plans to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
Wind turbine manufacturers have faced surging prices for materials such as concrete and steel as well as labour and specialist ships used to move large components such as blades and towers.
These rising costs were not factored into many contracts with wind farm developers, pushing turbine makers into the red as a result.
Some, including Siemens Energy, have also had to set aside large sums to fix faulty equipment.
After crashing to a €4.6bn (£3.9bn) annual loss last year - blamed mainly on Siemens Gamesa, its offshore wind unit - bosses at the company had to go cap in hand to the German government for support.
Gamesa announced 6,000 job cuts in November.
Inflation has also led to the cancellation of many offshore wind projects.
15 gigawatts’ worth of projects were cancelled or postponed last year in the UK and US alone, which would have provided enough electricity to power 12m homes.
As well as inflation, Mr Kaeser, who took over as chairman in 2021, argued that the problems are also down to foot-dragging by developers and governments.
“One of the shortcomings of the wind industry in the last five years is that there were a lot of announcements, a lot of plans,” he explained.
“But they took four, five or six years sometimes to go from the order to execution."
“Now, if you have five years in between, you have a massive risk of inflation, which has hit us really, really hard."
"Not just Siemens Energy, but also others."
“We need to have a long-term energy plan, that this is what we’re going to do in the next three years, five years.”
Mr Kaeser, 66, also criticised a “bigger is better” mentality in the industry that has seen turbine heights more than double in the past 20 years.
For example, General Electric’s Haliade-Xs stand at 853 feet each - two and a half times as tall as Big Ben - compared to a typical turbine height of around 300 feet at the turn of the century.
A dash to build bigger and bigger turbines has in some cases proved counterproductive, Mr Kaeser said, by forcing manufacturers to spend large sums of money upfront with too little time to recoup their investments.
“Industry was in quite a rat race."
"It was 3 gigawatts and then somebody would come out with 3.5 and then someone else 4 and on and on."
"They hadn’t even tested the old one yet but announced a new one.”
At the same time, flip-flopping on projects or delays caused by slow planning processes have left manufacturers without the certainty they need to invest in even bigger factories, let alone research and development that could bring costs down.
He said: “It’s up and down and up and down, and promise here and promise there and then, ‘Oh, well, renewables are too expensive’."
"Well, the cost of energy doesn’t go down on renewables if you don’t innovate."
“And if you’re making all the losses, why should you innovate?"
"So you have a sort of a Catch 22, which you can only break if you have a long term energy agenda.”
Ultimately, money talks.
If countries and developers are not prepared to put their money where their mouths are, they should rethink their plans for net zero altogether, he suggested.
“I think [the net zero targets] are realistic, but they come at a cost,” Mr Kaeser said.
“You need to stick by the facts at some point, even though facts sometimes may not be liked.”
He added that energy supplies are governed by a triangle of “reliability, affordability and sustainability”, but “sustainability and affordability may conflict”.
“If you want to have cheap energy, you need to be gas fired."
"That’s the cheapest way, the most secure way if you calculate the whole thing, from the beginning to the end."
“I believe people need to become reasonable about the energy transition."
“The matter of renewables being volatile - if there is a windless night, it could get complicated if you don’t have storage."
"So you need to think: what is my energy agenda?"
"How much do I want to have on renewables?"
"How do we deal with the fact that sometimes availability and demand don’t match?"
“So you say, okay, maybe we do baseload nuclear."
"Then maybe gas fired or even hydrogen-fired gas turbines for peaks [in demand].”
But he added: “Where does the hydrogen come from?"
"That story of green hydrogen is another fairytale."
"If you believe in the next five years, in industry it’s a feasible option - it’s not.”
Mr Kaeser seemed faintly exasperated by the state of the industry.
“There’s just now, every week, every month, another debate about something."
"Do you bring nuclear back, or that or this?"
"And this is what causes friction,” he sighed.
“Uncertainty is great, but I have enough uncertainty already.”
Mr Kaeser is a Siemens lifer who joined the company after graduating in 1980.
He was chief executive from 2013 to 2021, during which time Siemens Energy was spun-off as part of a split.
Siemens retains a 25pc stake in the energy business, while the company’s pension fund owns a further 30pc.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/en ... 8998&ei=20
"Energy bills must rise to pay for net zero, says Siemens Energy boss"
Story by Matt Oliver, Szu Ping Chan
22 JANUARY 2024
The German boss of Britain’s biggest wind turbine maker has warned energy bills will have to keep rising to pay for the green transition as he attacked “fairytale” thinking about net zero.
Joe Kaeser, chairman of Siemens Energy, suggested higher energy bills were inevitable as turbine makers grapple with huge losses, forcing them to pass on costs to their customers.
The company is the owner of the UK’s biggest wind turbine manufacturing site, in Hull, and employs thousands of British workers.
Mr Kaeser said manufacturers had become locked in a harmful “rat race” to build ever-bigger turbines and claimed developers and governments were in denial about the costs this entailed.
He also warned that inflation is battering industry balance sheets and warned of separate growing problems with faults and breakdowns in the sector.
Mr Kaeser told The Telegraph: “Every transformation comes at a cost and every transformation is painful."
"And that’s something which the energy industry and the public sector - governments - don’t really want to hear.
“I believe that for a while [customers] need to accept higher pricing.
“And then there might be innovation – about the weight of the blades, other efficiency methods, technology – so the cost can then go down again.
“But the point is, if there is no profit pool in an industry, why should that industry innovate?”
His comments come after the UK Government bowed to industry pressure in November and increased the power prices offered in future renewable energy auctions, after a competition in the summer received no bids from offshore wind developers.
The earlier auction flop triggered serious doubts that the UK would be able to meet its target of 50 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030.
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Mr Kaeser criticised what he described as “a lot of big mouths but little action” that had gone on for years in the wind industry.
Governments and developers are failing to follow through on their own green transition promises quickly enough, he said, while many are reluctant to admit the full costs of their plans to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
Wind turbine manufacturers have faced surging prices for materials such as concrete and steel as well as labour and specialist ships used to move large components such as blades and towers.
These rising costs were not factored into many contracts with wind farm developers, pushing turbine makers into the red as a result.
Some, including Siemens Energy, have also had to set aside large sums to fix faulty equipment.
After crashing to a €4.6bn (£3.9bn) annual loss last year - blamed mainly on Siemens Gamesa, its offshore wind unit - bosses at the company had to go cap in hand to the German government for support.
Gamesa announced 6,000 job cuts in November.
Inflation has also led to the cancellation of many offshore wind projects.
15 gigawatts’ worth of projects were cancelled or postponed last year in the UK and US alone, which would have provided enough electricity to power 12m homes.
As well as inflation, Mr Kaeser, who took over as chairman in 2021, argued that the problems are also down to foot-dragging by developers and governments.
“One of the shortcomings of the wind industry in the last five years is that there were a lot of announcements, a lot of plans,” he explained.
“But they took four, five or six years sometimes to go from the order to execution."
“Now, if you have five years in between, you have a massive risk of inflation, which has hit us really, really hard."
"Not just Siemens Energy, but also others."
“We need to have a long-term energy plan, that this is what we’re going to do in the next three years, five years.”
Mr Kaeser, 66, also criticised a “bigger is better” mentality in the industry that has seen turbine heights more than double in the past 20 years.
For example, General Electric’s Haliade-Xs stand at 853 feet each - two and a half times as tall as Big Ben - compared to a typical turbine height of around 300 feet at the turn of the century.
A dash to build bigger and bigger turbines has in some cases proved counterproductive, Mr Kaeser said, by forcing manufacturers to spend large sums of money upfront with too little time to recoup their investments.
“Industry was in quite a rat race."
"It was 3 gigawatts and then somebody would come out with 3.5 and then someone else 4 and on and on."
"They hadn’t even tested the old one yet but announced a new one.”
At the same time, flip-flopping on projects or delays caused by slow planning processes have left manufacturers without the certainty they need to invest in even bigger factories, let alone research and development that could bring costs down.
He said: “It’s up and down and up and down, and promise here and promise there and then, ‘Oh, well, renewables are too expensive’."
"Well, the cost of energy doesn’t go down on renewables if you don’t innovate."
“And if you’re making all the losses, why should you innovate?"
"So you have a sort of a Catch 22, which you can only break if you have a long term energy agenda.”
Ultimately, money talks.
If countries and developers are not prepared to put their money where their mouths are, they should rethink their plans for net zero altogether, he suggested.
“I think [the net zero targets] are realistic, but they come at a cost,” Mr Kaeser said.
“You need to stick by the facts at some point, even though facts sometimes may not be liked.”
He added that energy supplies are governed by a triangle of “reliability, affordability and sustainability”, but “sustainability and affordability may conflict”.
“If you want to have cheap energy, you need to be gas fired."
"That’s the cheapest way, the most secure way if you calculate the whole thing, from the beginning to the end."
“I believe people need to become reasonable about the energy transition."
“The matter of renewables being volatile - if there is a windless night, it could get complicated if you don’t have storage."
"So you need to think: what is my energy agenda?"
"How much do I want to have on renewables?"
"How do we deal with the fact that sometimes availability and demand don’t match?"
“So you say, okay, maybe we do baseload nuclear."
"Then maybe gas fired or even hydrogen-fired gas turbines for peaks [in demand].”
But he added: “Where does the hydrogen come from?"
"That story of green hydrogen is another fairytale."
"If you believe in the next five years, in industry it’s a feasible option - it’s not.”
Mr Kaeser seemed faintly exasperated by the state of the industry.
“There’s just now, every week, every month, another debate about something."
"Do you bring nuclear back, or that or this?"
"And this is what causes friction,” he sighed.
“Uncertainty is great, but I have enough uncertainty already.”
Mr Kaeser is a Siemens lifer who joined the company after graduating in 1980.
He was chief executive from 2013 to 2021, during which time Siemens Energy was spun-off as part of a split.
Siemens retains a 25pc stake in the energy business, while the company’s pension fund owns a further 30pc.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/en ... 8998&ei=20
Re: WINDMILLS AND SOLAR FARMS
REUTERS
"Orsted, Eversource submit revised proposal for Sunrise Wind in NY auction"
Reuters
January 25, 2024
Jan 25 (Reuters) - Denmark's Orsted said on Thursday it had submitted a new proposal with Eversource for Sunrise Wind in response to New York's latest offshore wind solicitation.
Sunrise Wind is a 924 MW offshore wind farm which would deliver power to New York and is expected to be completed by 2026, Orsted said.
Under the updated proposal, Orsted reached an agreement to acquire Eversource's 50% share in the Sunrise Wind project if awarded a contract in New York's fourth offshore wind solicitation.
If Orsted wins the bid, it would become the sole owner of Sunrise Wind, while Eversource would lead the project's onshore construction, the Danish renewable energy firm said.
Additionally, Orsted said it would pay 50% percent of the negotiated purchase price upon closing the sales transaction, with the remaining 50% to be paid when onshore construction is completed.
The 50-50 joint venture for Sunrise Wind will remain in place if the approval is not granted.
Orsted did not provide financial details for the acquisition of Eversource's stake in Sunrise Wind.
New York State last year launched a new accelerated offshore wind solicitation in a bid to revive troubled projects and keep the state on track to meet its renewable energy goals.
The Danish wind farm developer said in a separate statement it has withdrawn from the Maryland Public Service Commission orders approving Skipjack 1 and 2 projects as they are no longer commercially viable due to high interest rates and supply chain constraints.
The company said it intends to continue advancing development for the combined project, and will reposition Skipjack Wind, a combined 966 megawatt project.
Reporting by Gursimran Kaur and Stine Jacobsen; Editing by Krishna Chandra Eluri
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy ... 024-01-25/
"Orsted, Eversource submit revised proposal for Sunrise Wind in NY auction"
Reuters
January 25, 2024
Jan 25 (Reuters) - Denmark's Orsted said on Thursday it had submitted a new proposal with Eversource for Sunrise Wind in response to New York's latest offshore wind solicitation.
Sunrise Wind is a 924 MW offshore wind farm which would deliver power to New York and is expected to be completed by 2026, Orsted said.
Under the updated proposal, Orsted reached an agreement to acquire Eversource's 50% share in the Sunrise Wind project if awarded a contract in New York's fourth offshore wind solicitation.
If Orsted wins the bid, it would become the sole owner of Sunrise Wind, while Eversource would lead the project's onshore construction, the Danish renewable energy firm said.
Additionally, Orsted said it would pay 50% percent of the negotiated purchase price upon closing the sales transaction, with the remaining 50% to be paid when onshore construction is completed.
The 50-50 joint venture for Sunrise Wind will remain in place if the approval is not granted.
Orsted did not provide financial details for the acquisition of Eversource's stake in Sunrise Wind.
New York State last year launched a new accelerated offshore wind solicitation in a bid to revive troubled projects and keep the state on track to meet its renewable energy goals.
The Danish wind farm developer said in a separate statement it has withdrawn from the Maryland Public Service Commission orders approving Skipjack 1 and 2 projects as they are no longer commercially viable due to high interest rates and supply chain constraints.
The company said it intends to continue advancing development for the combined project, and will reposition Skipjack Wind, a combined 966 megawatt project.
Reporting by Gursimran Kaur and Stine Jacobsen; Editing by Krishna Chandra Eluri
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy ... 024-01-25/
Re: WINDMILLS AND SOLAR FARMS
The Telegraph
"Wind turbine bursts into flames"
Story by Matthew Field
29 JANUARY 2024
Firefighters have been called to a blaze at a wind turbine in west Wales that sent burning debris tumbling to the ground.
Walkers reported seeing the 100ft wind turbine billowing with smoke and flames, before a section fell to the ground and “exploded”.
Fire crews were called to the turbine near the market town of Newcastle Emlyn, on the border of Ceredigion and Carmarthenshire, at 11.46am on Monday.
Nick Blasdale, 61, and wife Alison, 59, said they were shocked to see parts of the turbine break free.
Mrs Blasdale said: “We watched the top section burst into flames then drop off whilst still burning then explode when it hit the ground.”
Mid and West Wales Fire Service said: “Crews responded to a wind turbine which was well alight on their arrival.
“Pieces of the wind turbine were falling nearby and crews monitored the condition of the debris.
“No further action was taken by crews and the landowner continued to monitor for fire spread and falling debris.”
The crew left the scene at 1.03pm.
The turbine was one of three that make up the Blaen Bowi Wind Farm in Carmarthenshire.
The 1.5MW wind farm became operational in 2002.
Last summer, a turbine at a wind farm on a beach in Suffolk caught alight, resulting in a substantial blaze.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topst ... r-BB1hr5m9
"Wind turbine bursts into flames"
Story by Matthew Field
29 JANUARY 2024
Firefighters have been called to a blaze at a wind turbine in west Wales that sent burning debris tumbling to the ground.
Walkers reported seeing the 100ft wind turbine billowing with smoke and flames, before a section fell to the ground and “exploded”.
Fire crews were called to the turbine near the market town of Newcastle Emlyn, on the border of Ceredigion and Carmarthenshire, at 11.46am on Monday.
Nick Blasdale, 61, and wife Alison, 59, said they were shocked to see parts of the turbine break free.
Mrs Blasdale said: “We watched the top section burst into flames then drop off whilst still burning then explode when it hit the ground.”
Mid and West Wales Fire Service said: “Crews responded to a wind turbine which was well alight on their arrival.
“Pieces of the wind turbine were falling nearby and crews monitored the condition of the debris.
“No further action was taken by crews and the landowner continued to monitor for fire spread and falling debris.”
The crew left the scene at 1.03pm.
The turbine was one of three that make up the Blaen Bowi Wind Farm in Carmarthenshire.
The 1.5MW wind farm became operational in 2002.
Last summer, a turbine at a wind farm on a beach in Suffolk caught alight, resulting in a substantial blaze.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topst ... r-BB1hr5m9
Re: WINDMILLS AND SOLAR FARMS
The National Review
"Britain’s Disastrous Path to Net Zero Is a Warning to the U.S."
Story by Andrew Puzder
6 FEBRUARY 2024
At last year’s U.N. climate conference in Dubai, the Biden administration agreed to triple the world’s renewable-energy capacity by 2030.
It also joined the Powering Past Coal Alliance, pledging to eliminate coal-powered generation.
This is all part of President Biden’s goal to completely decarbonize the U.S. electrical grid by 2035 and achieve net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050.
Britain has been going down this path since 2008, when Parliament wrote an 80 percent decarbonization target into law, which it raised to 100 percent, or net zero, in 2019.
This luxury net-zero policy, which only the rich can afford, has been devastating for both businesses and ordinary Britons just trying to heat their homes and get to work.
A new report for the RealClear Foundation by Rupert Darwall is a timely and much-needed warning to America.
It shows what would happen if Democrats and progressives get their way and inflict net-zero climate policies on the country.
British politicians boast of cutting greenhouse-gas emissions faster than any other major economy but ignore the unfortunate fact that Britain’s economy has been performing poorly since 2008.
In 2020, even before the recent surge in energy costs, everyday Britons were paying about 75 percent more for electricity than Americans, the result of a double whammy — cap-and-trade policies on the one hand and renewable subsidies on the other.
And then came the Ukraine shock.
During the 2022 energy crisis, electricity rates for British businesses were more than double the average paid by U.S. businesses.
In Britain, the impact of cap-and-trade on the cost of fuel to generate electricity is massive.
In 2022, government-imposed carbon costs averaged $128 per megawatt hour (MWh) for coal-generated electricity and $51 per MWh for natural gas.
Those costs are on top of actual fuel costs, which averaged $150 per MWh for electricity generated from coal and $160 per MWh for natural gas.
These mean that it cost $278 to generate 1 MWh of electricity from coal and $211 from natural gas.
In the United States, electricity prices were significantly lower for two reasons.
First, no cap-and-trade policies.
Second, for coal, British power stations were old and operated at much lower thermal efficiencies than in the U.S. (the U.K. has nearly phased out all coal-powered stations — although some had to be brought back during a 2023 cold snap); and, for natural gas, it is much cheaper piped (as it is in the U.S.) than liquified and shipped (as it is in Europe).
So in the U.S., the fuel cost per MWh of electricity generated from coal was $27 per MWh (versus $278 in Britain) and $61 per MWh for natural gas (versus $211 in Britain).
Britons also have to pay the cost of subsidizing politically favored wind and solar.
Analysis of the renewable portfolios of Britain’s Big Six energy companies shows that the average price for wind- and solar-generated electricity between 2009 and 2020 was well over £100 per MWh, whereas the price for reliable electricity from gas- and coal-fired power stations fell from £60 per MWh in 2013 to less than £50 per MWh in 2020.
That same year, consumer subsidies of renewables helped the Big Six to earn a profit of £61 per MWh of electricity on average for the higher-cost, intermittent, demand-unresponsive and therefore less valuable renewable outputs.
On the other hand, government-imposed costs forced the Big Six to take massive write-downs on their gas-fired power stations, collectively recording a staggering £1.6 billion loss in 2014 for providing the lower-cost, reliable generating capacity on which Britain’s households and businesses depend.
Unsurprisingly, these policies have led to overinvestment in renewables and underinvestment in the reliable generating capacity needed to keep the lights on — and the costs down.
Britain’s unintermittent, reliable coal- and gas-generating capacity peaked in 2010, at 88.0 gigawatts (GW).
It then fell by 25.1 GW over the next decade, mainly as coal-fired plants were shuttered.
Over the same period, wind and solar capacity rose by 33.5 GW.
Britain has managed to keep its lights on because higher electricity prices have driven demand down.
Between 2010 and 2019, economy-wide electricity consumption fell by 10.8 percent.
Even so, the gap between consumption and domestic generation has been widening, causing a surge in imported electricity from its European neighbors.
That’s not an option for the U.S.
We cannot import the equivalent of two-fifths of Canada’s electricity output.
Energy prices comparable to those in Britain — and across much of Europe — would tear the heart out of the American economy, which relies on cheap, abundant energy.
The impact on working- and middle-class Americans would be intolerable.
While it is unlikely that Congress would pass legislation like Britain’s Climate Change Act, which made net zero the law of the land after an 88-minute debate in the House of Commons, the threat of net zero is nonetheless as real as it is dangerous.
In May 2021, the White House issued an executive order on the adoption of a whole-of-government approach to climate financial-risk disclosure, demonstrating how an alliance between the administrative state and woke ESG investors on Wall Street would bring about net zero.
In August 2022, Congress passed the energy bill misnamed the Inflation Reduction Act, which provides for budget-busting, fiscally irresponsible uncapped subsidies of wind and solar, which will wreak havoc on the economics of reliable generating capacity, just as they have in Britain.
In 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed regulation on greenhouse-gas emissions from fossil-fuel-power generators that, if implemented, would go a long way toward achieving the administration’s economically devastating goal of entirely decarbonizing electricity generation by 2035.
Renewable energy is not a low-cost substitute for fossil fuels.
Renewables are not cheap, nor can they provide the reliability that modern societies expect and on which they depend.
Darwall’s report convincingly demonstrates how Britain was conned into net zero by deceptive and illusory promises of cheap renewable power.
The results have been an economic disaster.
There is still time to heed Britain’s warning and instead choose the path of energy abundance and economic prosperity by developing America’s unsurpassed reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... 1ec&ei=175
"Britain’s Disastrous Path to Net Zero Is a Warning to the U.S."
Story by Andrew Puzder
6 FEBRUARY 2024
At last year’s U.N. climate conference in Dubai, the Biden administration agreed to triple the world’s renewable-energy capacity by 2030.
It also joined the Powering Past Coal Alliance, pledging to eliminate coal-powered generation.
This is all part of President Biden’s goal to completely decarbonize the U.S. electrical grid by 2035 and achieve net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050.
Britain has been going down this path since 2008, when Parliament wrote an 80 percent decarbonization target into law, which it raised to 100 percent, or net zero, in 2019.
This luxury net-zero policy, which only the rich can afford, has been devastating for both businesses and ordinary Britons just trying to heat their homes and get to work.
A new report for the RealClear Foundation by Rupert Darwall is a timely and much-needed warning to America.
It shows what would happen if Democrats and progressives get their way and inflict net-zero climate policies on the country.
British politicians boast of cutting greenhouse-gas emissions faster than any other major economy but ignore the unfortunate fact that Britain’s economy has been performing poorly since 2008.
In 2020, even before the recent surge in energy costs, everyday Britons were paying about 75 percent more for electricity than Americans, the result of a double whammy — cap-and-trade policies on the one hand and renewable subsidies on the other.
And then came the Ukraine shock.
During the 2022 energy crisis, electricity rates for British businesses were more than double the average paid by U.S. businesses.
In Britain, the impact of cap-and-trade on the cost of fuel to generate electricity is massive.
In 2022, government-imposed carbon costs averaged $128 per megawatt hour (MWh) for coal-generated electricity and $51 per MWh for natural gas.
Those costs are on top of actual fuel costs, which averaged $150 per MWh for electricity generated from coal and $160 per MWh for natural gas.
These mean that it cost $278 to generate 1 MWh of electricity from coal and $211 from natural gas.
In the United States, electricity prices were significantly lower for two reasons.
First, no cap-and-trade policies.
Second, for coal, British power stations were old and operated at much lower thermal efficiencies than in the U.S. (the U.K. has nearly phased out all coal-powered stations — although some had to be brought back during a 2023 cold snap); and, for natural gas, it is much cheaper piped (as it is in the U.S.) than liquified and shipped (as it is in Europe).
So in the U.S., the fuel cost per MWh of electricity generated from coal was $27 per MWh (versus $278 in Britain) and $61 per MWh for natural gas (versus $211 in Britain).
Britons also have to pay the cost of subsidizing politically favored wind and solar.
Analysis of the renewable portfolios of Britain’s Big Six energy companies shows that the average price for wind- and solar-generated electricity between 2009 and 2020 was well over £100 per MWh, whereas the price for reliable electricity from gas- and coal-fired power stations fell from £60 per MWh in 2013 to less than £50 per MWh in 2020.
That same year, consumer subsidies of renewables helped the Big Six to earn a profit of £61 per MWh of electricity on average for the higher-cost, intermittent, demand-unresponsive and therefore less valuable renewable outputs.
On the other hand, government-imposed costs forced the Big Six to take massive write-downs on their gas-fired power stations, collectively recording a staggering £1.6 billion loss in 2014 for providing the lower-cost, reliable generating capacity on which Britain’s households and businesses depend.
Unsurprisingly, these policies have led to overinvestment in renewables and underinvestment in the reliable generating capacity needed to keep the lights on — and the costs down.
Britain’s unintermittent, reliable coal- and gas-generating capacity peaked in 2010, at 88.0 gigawatts (GW).
It then fell by 25.1 GW over the next decade, mainly as coal-fired plants were shuttered.
Over the same period, wind and solar capacity rose by 33.5 GW.
Britain has managed to keep its lights on because higher electricity prices have driven demand down.
Between 2010 and 2019, economy-wide electricity consumption fell by 10.8 percent.
Even so, the gap between consumption and domestic generation has been widening, causing a surge in imported electricity from its European neighbors.
That’s not an option for the U.S.
We cannot import the equivalent of two-fifths of Canada’s electricity output.
Energy prices comparable to those in Britain — and across much of Europe — would tear the heart out of the American economy, which relies on cheap, abundant energy.
The impact on working- and middle-class Americans would be intolerable.
While it is unlikely that Congress would pass legislation like Britain’s Climate Change Act, which made net zero the law of the land after an 88-minute debate in the House of Commons, the threat of net zero is nonetheless as real as it is dangerous.
In May 2021, the White House issued an executive order on the adoption of a whole-of-government approach to climate financial-risk disclosure, demonstrating how an alliance between the administrative state and woke ESG investors on Wall Street would bring about net zero.
In August 2022, Congress passed the energy bill misnamed the Inflation Reduction Act, which provides for budget-busting, fiscally irresponsible uncapped subsidies of wind and solar, which will wreak havoc on the economics of reliable generating capacity, just as they have in Britain.
In 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed regulation on greenhouse-gas emissions from fossil-fuel-power generators that, if implemented, would go a long way toward achieving the administration’s economically devastating goal of entirely decarbonizing electricity generation by 2035.
Renewable energy is not a low-cost substitute for fossil fuels.
Renewables are not cheap, nor can they provide the reliability that modern societies expect and on which they depend.
Darwall’s report convincingly demonstrates how Britain was conned into net zero by deceptive and illusory promises of cheap renewable power.
The results have been an economic disaster.
There is still time to heed Britain’s warning and instead choose the path of energy abundance and economic prosperity by developing America’s unsurpassed reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... 1ec&ei=175