Biden Plans Wind Farms Along Entire U.S. Coastline

[RandySF]

“The Biden administration announced on Wednesday a plan to develop large-scale wind farms along nearly the entire coastline of the United States, the first long-term strategy from the government to produce electricity from offshore turbines,” the New York Times reports.

“The announcement came months after the Biden administration approved the nation’s first commercial offshore wind farm off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts and began reviewing a dozen other potential offshore wind projects along the East Coast. On the West Coast, the administration has approved opening up two areas off the shores of Central and Northern California for commercial wind power development.”

“Taken together, the actions represent the most forceful push ever by federal government to promote offshore wind development.”




https://politicalwire.com/2021/10/13/biden-plans-wind-farms-along-the-entire-u-s-coastline/

[tanyev]

1. Ooh, completely surround Mar-a-Lago!

[SunSeeker]

2. Good! Windfarms don't spill toxic sludge on our beaches!

[Bluethroughu]

3. Build the wall, of wind turbines!

[hunter]

4. That's a terrible idea

The only thing wind turbines are good for is prolonging our dependence on natural gas.

Gas is destroying the natural environment as we know it, and will probably destroy our world civilization.

In places that have encouraged wind development additional wind turbines are useless, producing excess electricity when nobody needs it, or no electricity when it's needed the most.

Aggressive renewable energy schemes in places like California, Germany, and Denmark have failed. The situation is so bad in Germany they've been forced to import additional natural gas from Russia at potentially grave political costs. Worse, they haven't even been able to quit mining and burning coal for power.

Nuclear powered France closed its last coal mine twenty years ago.

Here's some day-to-day charts anyone can look at:

California:

http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html

Germany:

https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&stacking=stacked_absolute_area

France:

https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=FR&stacking=stacked_absolute_area

I live in California. On sunny days when the wind is blowing up to 85% of my electricity is renewable. But the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow 24 hours a day and seven days a week. At this moment 47% of my electricity is generated by gas power plants.

Wind turbines will not save the world.

As a radical environmentalist I oppose any wind and solar power schemes on previously undeveloped land or ocean sites.

[Vdizzle]

5. So we should abandon renewable energy all together?

Maybe we can add more plastics to the ocean too? Or maybe we can neglect all of our toxic waste more than we already do. I mean, what is the point in trying? We should just keep doing what we are doing and go to church more so that when the rapture comes, we will be saved. That sounds like the most responsible thing to do…. God already has a plan for everything, so what is the point in trying to make things better? Waste of time if you ask me….


And that was sarcasm before you ask.

[StevieM]

18. Hunter wants to make things better, as do I.

Nuclear power is the way to do that.

[womanofthehills]

7. So you think nuclear power is the answer

and all the states can just dump their highly radioactive spent rods in NM - traveling the highways with this dangerous load.

Your post is misleading when you say turbines produce excess electricity - that's what battery banks are for.

[ForgedCrank]

9. That doesn't really align with reality.

Battery buffer storage for primary power grids would be a financial impossibility, not to mention the MASSIVE amounts of toxic wastes created during manufacture and eventual disposal. And that's not to even mention the huge efficiency losses generated by multiple form conversions.
Yes, battery storage is "technically" possible, but you aren't weighing the absolutely massive volumes of energy being distributed. It would literally take cities of huge battery parks to achieve something of that magnitude, and all of it would need to be cycled and replaced about every 10 years on rotation. The cost alone would force most people to start burning firewood again to stay warm.
I really don't like stomping on ideas, but the details are many, and really are the devil, and we need to address them openly.

[Amishman]

20. Agreed, without huge advances in energy storage; wind and solar can only be a small source

Nuclear is the answer, though fission should be phased out as soon as fusion is viable - and we should be pumping tens of billions a year into fusion power research.

Liquid salt thorium reactors are close to viability, and would be an excellent interim solution

But yes, wind and solar are limited in their utility by energy storage technology. The output it too variable.

If we are going to phase out fossil fuels for transportation and home heat, we need to massively expand our electric generation capacity, and it needs to be fully dependable.

That being said, we should have more wind and solar. I'd rather have larger vertical axis wind turbines on top of every new urban highrise than put them offshore. Less habitat disruption and less energy lost in transmission

[ForgedCrank]

8. This is all a matter of managing our expectations.

Something absolutely HAS to be done before this place is irreversibly damaged. And as much as wind/solar etc come with so many positive variables, it is also our duty to recognize the crippling shortcomings of those and stop turning a blind eye to them, and there are more than a few. Cost and increased pollution from processing hazardous materials are among them, most especially when battery technology is involved. And that doesn't even begin to mention the huge efficiency losses in the many conversion points required during production, delivery/transport, and end use.
Few of these methods are anything more than stop-gap solutions, or at best, expensive supplements.
Nuclear sources can be done safely if things are thought through properly. For example, planting them on the coastline of an earthquake prone region like Japan might be something that needs considerable scrutiny.
That all being said, nuclear power sources CAN cover a very large segment of the demand, and do it in a safe manner at the same time. The argument regarding waste storage is valid, but we need to weigh all the costs and benefits. In the US, for example, we can easily allocate plenty of land for proper and safe storage. Yes, it is a negative, but the overall benefits of potentially killing off coal and other fossil fuel sources far outweigh those cons.
It's good to hear someone else speak out on these really important points.

[OrangeJoe]

11. Population

Until we reduce the world's population through voluntary birth control (educate women, make all contraceptives free and widely available, financial incentivizes for women not to have children, pay men for vasectomies, give grants for the first two kids only, etc.) any attempts to mitigate the problems of climate change and species extinction is just nibbling around the edges.

Yeah it's going to cause problems to do this, but only a fool thinks we can continue to overrun the planet and survive with any quality of life.

[quakerboy]

14. Energy can be stored

That we arent doing it well isnt to say it cant or shouldn't be done. I'm personally a fan of moving water around (finding a way to pump it far upstream to simultaneously help ameliorate some of the effects of the droughts climate change is bringing has a certain appeal, but im sure there would be drawbacks to be considered), but there are other options.

I haven't seen evidence that wind installations are terribly disruptive to ocean sites. Solar belongs on top and sides of most buildings that we've already made, and all the new ones we will make.

[hunter]

21. California moves huge amounts of water around...

... and uses that system to stabilize the electric grid by pumping water uphill when electric supplies are robust, then letting water run downhill and generating electricity when they are not.

Unfortunately the drought in the Western U.S.A. has greatly reduced this capacity. This drought may be a consequence of global warming.

As for the impacts of offshore wind, putting short-lived trash in the ocean is never a good idea. All the diesel powered boats that will be required to build, maintain, and eventually remove these wind turbines will have their own environmental impacts.

I don't have a lot of confidence that dead offshore turbines will be removed. Many California hillsides are still littered with the useless remains of Enron era wind turbines.

[Bev54]

17. There is a number of clean energy sources now and I doubt that the intention is to count on just one

Solar, wind, hydro and Biomass which is one of the most consistent, by using manure and food waste to produce electricity or natural gas.

[Hortensis]

34. Right. And nuclear. To keep everyone alive and the nation running

throughout the transition to new energy sources, and more sustainable consumption patterns, requires maintaining supply that can meet demand. Energy is necessary for life.

I can imagine a day when much of the wind turbine capacity is dismantled instead of replaced as it ages because better sources are in place.

[lagomorph777]

22. So we should develop nukes instead of storage technologies?

Sorry, I can't agree. We still have no idea how to store nuclear waste, after decades of screwing around.

Much cheaper to develop short-term energy storage than to develop eternal nuclear waste storage.

[hunter]

26. What storage technology do you propose?

The capacity of batteries is measured in minutes. Wind and solar outages can last weeks.

California has very significant hydroelectric capacity already, equivalent to several large nuclear or gas power plants, but much of that is idle in times of extreme drought.

One of my favorite mega-engineering fantasies would turn California's Salton Sea and Mexico's Laguna Saluda into a huge power storage unit and desalinization scheme. When the sun was shining and the wind was blowing water would be pumped uphill to Laguna Saluda and ultimately into the Gulf of California. When the sun wasn't shining and the wind wasn't blowing water would be released back into the Salton Sea to generate electricity.

But overall modern nuclear power plants have a much smaller environmental footprint than any solar/wind/pumped-hydro scheme.

Nuclear power is a mature technology. The first nuclear power plant began to generate electricity about seventy years ago. We know how to build and operate nuclear power plants safely, and we know how to handle the waste.

Like it or not, with the human population approaching 8 billion people we are dependent upon high density energy sources for our food and shelter. I think the most dangerous fuel is natural gas because many people think it's benign and it keeps their renewable energy fantasies afloat. Sure, natural gas is "better than coal" but that's not saying anything. They're both killers.

[lagomorph777]

27. Obviously, a complementary range of storage technologies.

But you knew that. When it comes to energy, the answer should NEVER be "one single technology". That leads to fragility and vulnerability to monopolies.

Flywheels and lithium batteries for instantaneous frequency regulation.

Gravity (including hydro), compressed air, thermal, hydrogen for longer term.

Many other technologies are in development. Flow batteries (limited only by tank size), superconductors, supercapacitors, etc.

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/76097.pdf

https://www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/Final%20-%20ESGC%20Cost%20Performance%20Report%2012-11-2020.pdf

Other key points:
Diversity of supply reduces intermittency. For example, the likelihood of an extended drop in both solar and wind energy in a region is much lower than a drop in either source alone.
Environmental impacts of solar installations should be mitigated by placing them on land that is already damaged (e.g rooftops, brownfield industrial sites/waste facilities, parking lots (makes a great sun shade for the cars)).
Much storage is moving "behind the meter" - i.e. individual customers are installing combined renewable source/storage in a distributed way.

[hunter]

29. I've been watching technological developments in renewable energy...

... since I was a radical young anti-nuclear activist in the later 'seventies and early 'eighties.

Well, the technology is here now and it's been found wanting.

At this moment only 24% of my electricity is coming from fossil fuels. Locally, it might even be less. There's so much solar installed in my neighborhood we may be exporting electricity on a sunny day. (The utilities seem to limit fossil fuel use to a 15% minimum, keeping a certain number of gas plants spinning in case of wind outages or transmission line failures.)

I can park under solar panels at the local supermarket, about a third of my neighbors have solar panels on their roofs, and the schools all have very large solar arrays.

But the stability of the grid is entirely dependent on natural gas. A megawatt rated wind or solar installation has to be backed up with a megawatt of gas capacity. More storage increases the cost of the power, but it doesn't decrease the possibility of outages in a linear way. It might even increase the risk of outages as storage systems reach the end of their capacity and drop offline.

The problem is the same at any scale, from a small off-grid cabin with solar panels and batteries, to a regional electric grid. Most of these systems are backed up by fossil fuels.

And we're not even talking about the high density energy systems required to feed and comfortably shelter eight billion people.

An economy powered entirely by "renewable energy" would look nothing like the economy many affluent people now enjoy. But that's not what made me change my mind about nuclear power. Rather, I no longer believe renewable energy can support the current human population. If we don't quit fossil fuels billions of people will suffer and die. If we do quit fossil fuels for renewable energy, billions of people will still suffer and die. I'm not worried about the rich guy driving the Tesla with the solar panels on his roof and the power wall in his garage, I'm worried about the family that has no access to clean water or nutritious food.

Our fossil fueled civilization has driven itself into a ditch. Nuclear power is the only existing technology powerful enough to displace fossil fuels entirely while maintaining the industrial capacity most of us depend upon for food, clean water, and safe shelter.

[lagomorph777]

30. I might consider thorium, because it burns the filthy waste of uranium nukes.

As a stopgap.

But I'd need some more convincing.

Uranium nukes, nope.

[live love laugh]

6. He's going to cause CANCER!!

[certainot]

10. and kill all the birds the republicans don't shoot or poison

[C Moon]

12. Bravo! Fuck nuclear power plants!

[hunter]

13. Nuclear power won't destroy our civilization.

Fossil fuels surely will.

[quakerboy]

16. Thats why everyone is rushing to invest in

real estate right around the Chernobyl site. And around Fukishima.

I know the people who grew up in the shadow of Hanford really appreciate the various interesting surgeries that they have gotten to have, as well.

[hunter]

24. The most horrible thing we learned from Chernobyl and Fukushima...

... is that ordinary humans going about their daily lives are worse for the natural environment than radioactive fallout from the worst sorts of nuclear accidents.

Pound for pound, an affluent human does far more damage to the natural environment than used nuclear fuel safely stored away in a container. Used nuclear fuel goes nowhere and does nothing.

w

At this point the Chernobyl tourists are probably doing more damage to the natural environment than the accident itself.

What's worse, we consider unremarkable the vast damages done by fossil fuels every day to our own human health and the natural environment.

Support for hybrid wind/gas power systems is just another form of climate change denial. A smoker who goes from a pack a day habit to a half pack a day habit and a vape pen is still a smoker. A fossil fueled power grid is still a fossil fueled power grid even with supplemental wind energy.

At this moment 44% of my electricity is generated by gas. That's better than 100% coal, but it won't save the world.

[Celerity]

19. renewables simply do not have enough ERoEI, nuclear does, and the latest gen reactors are far safer

hopefully fusion power is soon a reality



Nations Go Nuclear As Prices Spike And Renewables Fail

https://www.eurasiareview.com/12102021-nations-go-nuclear-as-prices-spike-and-renewables-fail-oped/

National leaders around the world are announcing big plans to return to nuclear energy now that the cost of natural gas, coal, and petroleum are spiking, and weather-dependent renewables are failing to deliver. “The number one objective is to have innovative small-scale nuclear reactors in France by 2030 along with better waste management,” said French President Emmanuel Macron. Macron had previously promised to reduce nuclear from 75 to 50 percent of its power, noted Financial Times. “But the mood has now changed,” the paper writes today. “Macron said on Tuesday he would begin investing in new nuclear projects ‘very quickly.’” “Nuclear is coming [back] to the fulcrum of the energy debate in France and much faster than I ever thought it would,” said a partner at Lavoisier Conseil, an energy-focused management consultancy.

Meanwhile, the British government is in talks with Westinghouse over whether to build a new nuclear plant in Wales, one which could provide power for over six million homes, and has pushed China out of having a stake in a different nuclear plant, Sizewell. Last year, former Extinction Rebellion spokesperson Zion Lights, led a successful push to build Sizewell. What explains the change? Rising energy prices and growing popular and political support for nuclear. Public support for nuclear energy rose 17 percentage points in France. “I do not want our country to lose its energy sovereignty under the pretext of an absurd energy transition copied from Germany,” said a conservative French presidential candidate seeking to defeat Macron.

Finland has joined France, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic in lobbying the European Union to categorize nuclear power as sustainable. According to the Finnish Broadcasting Company, Finland’s pro-nuclear lobbying marks a U-turn within the Green Party, which is part of the current government. “Traditionally the party has been fiercely anti-nuclear,” notes Pekka Vänttinen of Euractiv, “and has resigned from previous governments over the issue. Its views have become more pragmatic, and the Greens now claim to have a technology-neutral attitude when it comes to fighting climate change.”

The heavy reliance on weather-dependent renewables in the US and Europe made electricity supplies more vulnerable to natural gas shortages. Growing dependence on renewables have meant dependence on natural gas and its inevitable price spikes. Many nations are now returning to the dirtiest forms of electricity production, diesel and coal. The shift to nuclear is worldwide. Yesterday, Japan’s new prime minister, Fumio Kishida, defended his pro-nuclear policies in Parliament. Kishida came to power on a pro-nuclear platform. He defeated a former vaccine minister who had criticized nuclear energy. “It’s crucial that we re-start nuclear power plants,” Kishida said.

snip

[WarGamer]

33. Bill Gates has it figured out

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/08/bill-gates-terrapower-is-building-next-generation-nuclear-power.html

[Duppers]

15. K & R

[Midnight Writer]

23. Like anything else, technology for renewables will advance as we develop it.

More efficient capture, transmission and storage methods will be developed, but not if we don't work on it.

I would like to see America take the lead in this industry, rather than importing technology from other countries.

[Bettie]

25. That is great

every little bit helps!

[RussBLib]

28. I wish they would pursue wave-action power too

It's been shown to be very effective and cost-efficient.

We need all options on the table. To me, that also includes nuclear power.

[TrogL]

31. It's windy there already. Why are they putting fans in?

[WarGamer]

32. Good, don't forget the nukes

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/08/bill-gates-terrapower-is-building-next-generation-nuclear-power.html

“We envision a 2050 grid that is powered by very significant wind and solar power, but is complemented by” Terra Power nuclear reactors, TerraPower president and CEO, Chris Levesque, tells CNBC Make It.

Levesque envisions that TerraPower will help the United States become a dominant force in nuclear power; as other countries transition their energy grids, “the United States will once again export reactors that set the standard for the world, just as we did for today’s conventional reactors,” Levesque says.