Offshore Wind Farms Are Spinning Up in the US--At Last

[OKIsItJustMe]

https://www.wired.com/story/offshore-wind-farms-are-spinning-up-in-the-us-at-last/

Author: Eric NiilerEric Niiler | science | 04.17.19 | 08:00 am

Offshore Wind Farms Are Spinning Up in the US—At Last

On June 1, the Pilgrim nuclear plant in Massachusetts will shut down, a victim of rising costs and a technology that is struggling to remain economically viable in the United States. But the electricity generated by the aging nuclear station soon will be replaced by another carbon-free source: a fleet of 84 offshore wind turbines rising nearly 650 feet above the ocean's surface.

The developers of the Vineyard Wind project say their turbines—anchored about 14 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard—will generate 800 megawatts of electricity once they start spinning sometime in 2022. That’s equivalent to the output of a large coal-fired power plant and more than Pilgrim’s 640 megawatts.

“Offshore wind has arrived,” says Erich Stephens, chief development officer for Vineyard Wind, a developer based in New Bedford, Massachusetts, that is backed by Danish and Spanish wind energy firms. He explains that the costs have fallen enough to make developers take it seriously. “Not only is wind power less expensive, but you can place the turbines in deeper water, and do it less expensively than before.”

Last week, the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities awarded Vineyard Wind a 20-year contract to provide electricity at 8.9 cents per kilowatt-hour. That's about a third the cost of other renewables (such as Canadian hydropower), and it's estimated that ratepayers will save $1.3 billion in energy costs over the life of the deal.

…

[progree]

1. Bigger and bigger turbines

Last edited Thu Apr 18, 2019, 12:10 AM - Edit history (1)

I thought I read a few days ago that 5.something MW is the biggest ...

In the race to get big, Vineyard Wind plans to use a 9.5 MW turbine with a 174-meter ((570 feet)) diameter rotor, a giant by the standard of most wind farms. But GE last year unveiled an even bigger turbine, the 12 MW Haliade-X. When complete in 2021, each turbine will have a 220-meter ((720 feet)) wingspan (tip to tip) and be able to generate enough electricity to light 16,000 European homes. GE is building these beasts for offshore farms in Europe, where wind power now generates 14 percent of the continent’s electricity (compared to 6.5 percent in the US). “

720 feet is about the height of a 72 story building (using the 10 feet per story thumb rule which is probably more like a minimum). And that's not the height of the tower or the whole thing, but just the diameter of the circle swept by the blades.

[Finishline42]

5. The reason windmills get bigger is simple

When you double the diameter of the blades you cube the output.

[NNadir]

2. If the wind plant operates at 40% capacity utilization, very high for wind facilities...

...the offshore bird grinders will be the equivalent of a power plant operating at an average continuous power of 480 MW, if they're lucky.

In 20 years they'll be garbage, and they will require a redundant gas plant to back them up all during the 20 year period they operate.

The Pilgrim nuclear plant has operated since 1972, and was licensed to operate until 2032, but is being shut because the gas industry does not pay for the waste it dumps into the planetary atmosphere with complete contempt for all future generations.

When the wind plants are trash in 2040, the steel to replace them will require dumping coal waste, including coke waste directly into the air, the water supply and the land.

In 2018, the US nuclear industry reported busbar costs of under 4 cents per kwh.

The fact that there are people ignorant enough to report this disgrace, this deeper descent into dangerous fossil fuels as a victory is a damned good reason why we now see carbon dioxide readings of over 414 ppm.

The disgrace, the absolute disgrace is the Trumpian scale lie that a peak Megawatt is a unit of energy. It isn't. On the entire planet, after millions upon millions of equally insipid bull comparing the solar and wind industry with the nuclear industry, which operates at close to 100% capacity utilization as opposed to 20-40% capacity utilization is really criminal.

History will not forgive the people who spread this illiterate nonsense, nor should it.

The nuclear industry has been producing about 28 exajoules of energy since the 1990s, this while being attacked by ignoramuses working to produce this gas growth while handing out inflated bullshit about how wind isn't gas and coal.

The wind and solar industry have never, not once, in half a century of such bullshit crowing produced half of what the nuclear industry produces in any given year.

Not once.

[progree]

3. That's just the fuel and operating cost? No construction cost?

Last edited Thu Apr 18, 2019, 01:41 AM - Edit history (1)

In 2018, the US nuclear industry reported busbar costs of under 4 cents per kwh.

P.S. recognizing that the article is comparing to Pilgrim, whose construction is already paid for -- a sunk cost -- though there might be required upgrades that significantly exceed regular maintenance.... that's true for some of the nukes that are being retired -- big new capital expenditures required.

I've been reading about the nuclear plants being retired or being talked of being retired ... trying to understand the logic of ... if their construction costs have long been paid for, and their fuel costs are way cheaper than any fossil fuel including natural gas (at least in my day 30 years ago, sigh -- back then fuel + variable O&M was $6.50/MWh ( 0.65 cents/ Kwh ).

Oh, not to mention the nuclear reliability / capacity factor / non-intermittency.

I found this which seems to not include construction costs

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html

Nuclear fuel + O&M in 2017 was 24.38 mills / KWH which is 2.43 cents / KWH = $24.38 / MWH

Compared to "gas turbine and small scale" which is $31.76 / MWH.

That particular table doesn't have wind or solar, which presumably have $0 fuel cost but do have O&M costs.

[NNadir]

4. The nuclear plants are fully amortized. They were a gift from an earlier generation to ours.

The problem with us as opposed to previous generations is that we care only for the short term, i.e. ourselves.

We are giving nothing to future generations except our waste, and I'm not talking about so called "nuclear waste," which is not "waste" at all. I note that the unreacted uranium in used American nuclear fuel, never mind the depleted uranium, if converted into plutonium is enough to provide all the world's energy for over a year.

The United States, using technology that is now essentially more than 60 or 70 years old, built more than 100 nuclear plants in less than 30 years while producing some of the cheapest electricity in the world.

The contention that what has already happened is impossible would be absurd in a sane world, but that's not the world in which we live.

If we took the same amount of money that we squander on solar and wind energy every year - the front for the gas industry - and trained nuclear engineers and built nuclear production infrastructure much as we did in the 1960's, nuclear reactors would not cost absurd amounts of money, as again, history has shown.

The Pilgrim reactor cost $213 million dollars in 1972. That translates to about $1.2 billion dollars in 2019 dollars for a reactor that operated for almost half a century. It was a wise investment.

I note that the more than one billion dollar wind trash will be just that, trash, by 2040.

We hate all future generations, and they will not - and should not - forgive us for our willful ignorance.

[Finishline42]

6. So why do nuclear plants need subsidies to remain competitive?

What are the costs that utilities companies are seeing that makes them want to shut them down?

I don't think they are making political decisions, but pretty much straight spreadsheet decisions.

Maybe they see the future when wind and solar dominate?

When a traditional power plant sells power to the grid they have to consider labor and fuel costs which wind and solar don't have.

Wind and solar have a much different business plan. Most of the cost of power is to build the capacity. From then you sell what you produce for as much as you can since there is no cost for fuel and minimal labor. You are just looking for cash flow. Probably need to look at how the grid buys power - through auctions. Wind and solar when they have power to sell are bidding $0 because they will get paid on the what the last bid accepted gets paid. I think that's why there was a move to pay baseload producers a higher rate just to keep them around.

[progree]

7. I will be asking in a day or two. This thread is not over.

One example of subsidies https://www.democraticunderground.com/1127126292#post2