Wind Energy Giant Orsted Says Delays in U.S. May Cost $2 Billion

[NNadir]

Wind Energy Giant Orsted Says Delays in U.S. May Cost $2 Billion Stanley Reed, NY Times, August 30, 2023.

Subtitle:

Supply chain problems and high interest rates are hurting U.S. projects, the Danish company said.

Orsted, the Danish renewable energy giant, has warned that it may write off as much as $2.12 billion because of supply chain problems and other issues at three giant offshore wind installations off the United States’ East Coast.

The announcement from the company, which has been a global pioneer in offshore wind energy, is the latest sign of trouble in an industry expected to supply an increasingly large portion of clean energy to meet the climate-change goals of many countries, including the United States.

“This will not be the last that we will see this year,” said Soeren Lassen, the head of offshore wind at Wood Mackenzie, a consulting firm.

Orsted’s shares tumbled 25 percent after the news.

The wind farms covered in the announcement would supply power to customers in New York, Connecticut and New Jersey. Orsted also said it would reconfigure plans for two other projects to avoid similar problems...

... The company said the sharp rise in interests rates would also increase costs in the United States. Renewable energy projects require billions in investment upfront. Orsted also said it might not be able to achieve tax credits from the United States as large as it had anticipated.

The impairments amount to about half of the $4 billion that Orsted said it had invested in its offshore portfolio in the United States but are only a fraction of the estimated overall cost of these projects, which is more than $10 billion, and the company’s overall American plans...

All of this wind junk will be landfill within 20 years of being put in place by industrializing the benthic wilderness off the coast of my home state, spewing microplastics from the blades in extreme weather, and requiring redundant gas plants that will dump dangerous fossil fuel waste - waste that has put the planet in flames - directly into the planetary atmosphere.

In this article, Orsted claimed it is not planning to abandon this expensive, dirty and unworthy exercise, but I'm also hopeful that the projects will be abandoned by a later article a few days, September 6, 2023, after the above linked article:

Orsted CEO Says Abandoning US Wind Projects a 'real option'.

In New Jersey, we could easily built two or three nuclear plants on our coasts, one to replace Oyster Creek, and two more to shut some gas plants, and produce reliable, continuous, clean energy without trashing the benthic ecosystem.

[TeamProg]

1. You want more Fukushimas? Nukes are still bad. nt

[NNadir]

3. No, I want less antinuke selective attention, fear and ignorance.

Nineteen thousand people will die today from air pollution because of antinuke selective attention and ignorance.

That's seven million people per year, roughly, close to 80 million people while clowns whine about Fukushima.

About 20,000 people died from seawater during the Sendai Earthquake. While I haven't noticed any antinukes whining about banning coastal cities because they don't give a shit about climate change, they seem to believe that radiation releases from the nuclear plants ended life on Earth.

How many people died from radiation at Fukushima again? Only legitimate scientific publications will be accepted as an answer, not indifferent paranoid bullshit from people who don't give a rat's ass about climate change.

Here's an example of what might be acceptable as an answer: Comparison of mortality patterns after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant radiation disaster and during the COVID-19 pandemic Motohiro Tsuboi et al 2022 J. Radiol. Prot. 42 031502

It's an interesting comparison in particular, since I find antinukes to be the intellectual and moral equivalents of antivaxxers, with the caveat that antinukes have killed far more people.

Nuclear power doesn't need to be perfect and without risk to be better than everything else. It only needs to be better than everything else, which it is.

Have a nice weekend.

[TeamProg]

6. Can we store the nuke waste at your house?

Please?

[NNadir]

9. There is no such thing as nuclear "waste."

There are valuable fission products and valuable actinides.

One has to be badly educated about the composition of used nuclear fuels to not understand this; and regrettably people who know nothing at all about the subject. By contrast, I do; I can hold forth on all of the constituents of used nuclear fuel.

As it happens, I have components of used nuclear fuel in my house. The ionization source in my smoke detector contains americium.

Nobody asked me if you could store your fossil fuel waste in my lungs, and apparently assholes carrying on about used nuclear fuel don't give a flying fuck about that, they just blithely accept it.

Assholes carrying on about so called "nuclear waste" never answer when I ask them to show that the storage of used nuclear fuel in the last 70 years will kill as many people as will die from dangerous fossil fuel waste, aka "air pollution" in the next six hours, about 4500 people.

They either slither away or mutter something insipid or make stuff up.

[TeamProg]

10. So, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl weren't threats to anyone's health.

And the waste that easy TX doesn’t want stored there is no issue either. Got it.

[NNadir]

11. I am very aware of stupidity, fear and ignorance.

I have no choice but to have fossil fuel in my lungs because of said stupidity fear and ignorance.

That stupidity, fear, and ignorance has been successfully marketed by the stupid, the fearful and the ignorant is hardly surprising of course.

Such events ring through history.

I do note, with due contempt that no effort has been made to demonstrate that in the 70 year history of commercial nuclear power, the storage of used nuclear fuel has killed as many people as will die in the next six hours from air pollution, 4500 people, as requested. This is unsurprising, a change of subject.

I note that one should not confuse popular ideology with wisdom, the name for that particular travesty in bad thinking has a common name, the bandwagon fallacy, aka "appeal to popularity."

I definitely got that much.

I also "get it," that antinukes are very much like antivaxxers, with the obvious caveat that antinukes have killed vastly more people as nuclear energy saves lives, as irrefutably demonstrated by the famous climate scientist Jim Hansen in support of a colleague.

Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)

The death toll from antinuke ignorance, which excuses fossil fuel waste, aka "air pollution" is recorded in one of the world's most prominent medical journals.

It is here: Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 (Lancet Volume 396, Issue 10258, 17–23 October 2020, Pages 1223-1249). This study is a huge undertaking and the list of authors from around the world is rather long. These studies are always open sourced; and I invite people who want to carry on about Fukushima to open it and search the word "radiation." It appears once. Radon, a side product brought to the surface by fracking while we all wait for the grand so called "renewable energy" nirvana that did not come, is not here and won't come, appears however: Household radon, from the decay of natural uranium, which has been cycling through the environment ever since oxygen appeared in the Earth's atmosphere.

Here is what it says about air pollution deaths in the 2019 Global Burden of Disease Survey, if one is too busy to open it oneself because one is too busy carrying on about Fukushima:

The top five risks for attributable deaths for females were high SBP (5·25 million [95% UI 4·49–6·00] deaths, or 20·3% [17·5–22·9] of all female deaths in 2019), dietary risks (3·48 million [2·78–4·37] deaths, or 13·5% [10·8–16·7] of all female deaths in 2019), high FPG (3·09 million [2·40–3·98] deaths, or 11·9% [9·4–15·3] of all female deaths in 2019), air pollution (2·92 million [2·53–3·33] deaths or 11·3% [10·0–12·6] of all female deaths in 2019), and high BMI (2·54 million [1·68–3·56] deaths or 9·8% [6·5–13·7] of all female deaths in 2019). For males, the top five risks differed slightly. In 2019, the leading Level 2 risk factor for attributable deaths globally in males was tobacco (smoked, second-hand, and chewing), which accounted for 6·56 million (95% UI 6·02–7·10) deaths (21·4% [20·5–22·3] of all male deaths in 2019), followed by high SBP, which accounted for 5·60 million (4·90–6·29) deaths (18·2% [16·2–20·1] of all male deaths in 2019). The third largest Level 2 risk factor for attributable deaths among males in 2019 was dietary risks (4·47 million [3·65–5·45] deaths, or 14·6% [12·0–17·6] of all male deaths in 2019) followed by air pollution (ambient particulate matter and ambient ozone pollution, accounting for 3·75 million [3·31–4·24] deaths (12·2% [11·0–13·4] of all male deaths in 2019), and then high FPG (3·14 million [2·70–4·34] deaths, or 11·1% [8·9–14·1] of all male deaths in 2019).

I would congratulate the antinukes around the world at their grand success in killing people with air pollution, about 70 million in the last ten years, over 80 million since they started whining about Fukushima, and their similar success in driving climate change, but I try to have something called "ethics."

Have a nice weekend.

[TeamProg]

13. All that air pollution contributed to the longer lives of humans bc it until only recently had

life expectancy declined.

[NNadir]

14. It's entirely unsurprising to hear antinuke radiation paranoids cheer for air pollution.

The indifference is duly noted.

The question is to demonstrate, by appeal to the primary scientific literature that the storage of used nuclear fuel has killed as many people in its 70 history of accumulation and storage as will die in the next six hours from air pollution.

So far in this highly dubious exchange including applause for air pollution, and presumably another form of it, climate change, there has been no effort to demonstrate 4500 deaths, six hours of the death toll for air pollution from the storage of used nuclear fuel.

The planet's on fire, vast ecosystems are collapsing, people are dying from exposure to extreme heat and extreme weather.

I'd be interested to learn, again, by appeal to the scientific literature, that used nuclear fuel is responsible for any of the states of affairs described in the last sentence.

[TeamProg]

15. Now you're moving the goal posts.

[NNadir]

17. The goal post I've established has been consistent.

It is for an antinuke to demonstrate that the death toll from the storage of used nuclear fuel has killed as many people as will die in the next six hours from air pollution.

[TeamProg]

16. I am NOT pro fossil fuel, but I am anti dirty nukes. nt

[NNadir]

18. Actions speak louder than words.

All energy technologies have risks. Last two dams collapsed killing vastly more people than died from radiation at Fukushima, although antinukes won't carry on endlessly about that any more than they give a shit for more 200,000 people who died from Banqiao disaster in 1976 in China.

They claim they're for so called "renewable energy" of course, but just like they don't give a shit about the more than 80 million people who died from air pollution since Fukushima, they don't care that so called "renewable energy" is useless and entirely dependent on the use of fossil fuels.

Something called "data:"




Source: 2022 IEA World Energy Outlook Table A 1a, page 435

Numbers don't lie. People lie to each other and to themselves. Antinukes lie about what they really support, but numbers don't lie.

All antinukes are pro-fossil fuels. There are no exceptions.

Earlier in this thread the current antinuke cheering for or ignoring these deaths pointed to the "benefits" of fossil fuels by making this very dubious defense of air pollution.

All that air pollution contributed to the longer lives of humans bc it until only recently had

life expectancy declined.

This, to my view, in an appalling defense of what fossil fuels have done to the planet.

I'm not fooled. I have dealt with antinukes, their lack of scientific insight, their insipid chanting, their rote conservatism, their selective attention, their uninformed soothsaying, their contempt for humanity and decency,and their withered sense of ethics here for 20 years.

In those 20 years, about 160 million people died from air pollution and the concentration of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide rose by 50 ppm.

Nuclear energy need not address the paranoia of barely literate sloganeers, who can't comprehend numbers to be better than everything else, nor does it need to be risk free to better than everything else. It only needs to be better than everything else.

I am extremely proud that my son is seeking his Ph.D. in nuclear engineering in hopes of saving what is left to be saved and restoring what can be restored as a result of the appalling antinuke ignorance it has been my misfortune to encounter.

To my mind, antinukes all sit on their asses, picking lint out of their navels, chanting platitudes and accepting the status quo, while the world burns.

It should disgust any one with any traces of moral sense.

[Think. Again.]

2. Don't worry...

...the wind industry will pull through this, the Orsted cost over-runs and construction delays are not anything as bad as the $17 billion and 7 years of the Vogtle nuclear plant.

[hunter]

4. With any luck this signals the inevitable collapse of the offshore wind energy fantasy.

Hopefully our civilization will have the resources to clean up the mess.

There are hillsides in California that are still littered with the decaying remains of wind turbines built during the Enron era boom.

[NNadir]

5. I was pleased to see environmental protesters who had the courage to be arrested for protesting...

...this environmental outrage.

Orsted Breaks Ground in Ocean City, Protesters Arrested

Six offshore wind farm opponents were arrested Tuesday afternoon during a protest of preliminary work along the 35th Street corridor in Ocean City for an underground transmission cable that would link wind turbines with a land-based electric grid at the former B.L. England power plant in Upper Township.

About 60 protesters attended the rally with the goal of stopping workers from drilling holes in an early step in Orsted’s Ocean Wind 1 project. When police asked them to relocate about 10 feet from the site, many did.

Six of them refused, resulting in workers not being able to start their work to drill holes along the corridor, Police Chief Jay Prettyman said. They were charged with two disorderly persons offenses, failure to disperse and obstruction of highways or public pathways.

They are as follows:

Denise Philipp, 53, of Doylestown, Pa.
Karen Corsi, 66, of Woodbury, N.J.
Shani Kovacevic, 44, of Ocean View, N.J.
Bonna Dataneang-Weinstein, 58, of Rydal, Pa.
Robert Weinstein, 73 of Rydal, Pa.
Lee Darby-Rinaldi, 59, of Absecon...

... Phillip said she never protested anything in her life before Tuesday.

“I want my children and grandchildren to have the ocean,” Phillip said. “I think we are well-aware that the whales are being killed by what Orsted is doing. If you don’t stand for something, you stand for nothing. We aren’t big money. We aren’t big organizations. We are all doing this because we love this community.”

Ocean City resident Suzanne Hornick, an outspoken critic of the wind farm project and Orsted, said the turnout was “great” and is hopeful for the future.

“People came from as far away as Point Pleasant and Cape May Point to join us today in this fight,” Hornick said. “I organized this to stop the work for a few hours today to send a clear message to Orsted, its stockholders, Gov. (Phil) Murphy and our state government. We, the coastal residents of New Jersey, don’t want offshore wind.”

Hornick, who noted that she was the main organizer of the rally, said she “received tremendous support from Defend Brigantine Beach and Save the Jersey Shore.”

It's all so unnecessary. We could have reliable clean energy here with just a few more nuclear plants instead of gas dependent junk off the coast.

[TeamProg]

8. I haven't seen those. Where?

[hunter]

12. Tehachipi Pass, San Gorgonio Pass, Pacheco Pass...

A lot of the Enron era crap has been taken down, but quite a lot of it remains.

Dead turbines used to litter both sides of Highway 152 south of Santa Nella, but many of those have been taken down.

There's still a huge army of dead turbines a little further south.

They are visible from the road and from a satellite view here:

37.036209, -121.019831

I'm not picking out this location for any particular reason. There are zombie wind turbines all over California if you know where to look.

I personally visited many of these sites back when I was an anti-nuclear activist and still optimistic about wind power. Perversely, I didn't think much at all about all the gasoline I burned on the highways between Humboldt Bay and San Onofre.