Offshore wind 18

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Charles Barton Posted 10:34 am
   11 Dec 2007

   Off Shore powerThe idea of off shore power is neat, but the offshore wind in the United States is far more expensive than nuclear power.  Wendy Williams, in an December 9, Op-ed in the New York Times discussed the some of those costs.  A 40-turbine offshore wind project off Long Island was finally scrapped after the price rose to nearly $1 billion.  At full capacity, the facility was rated at 140 megawatts. Even if it produced half of it's rated power the facility would have produced power at 11,000 per KWh.  David, had this been a nuclear facility you would have been screaming bloody murder, but since it is green you ignore the cost issue.  The same Op-ed mentioned the Cape Cod 468-megawatt off-shore wind project which might cost as much as $1.7 billion the project is expected to average 182 MW.  The Cape Cod project is a real deal, only $9,400 per KW.  Cheep enough to make David Roberts jump flips.  
   
   Charles Barton

   Permalink

2. 

   GRLCowan Posted 1:25 pm
   11 Dec 2007

   Expensive enough ...to be nonthreatening to oil and gas interests. Especially when wind lulls translate so nicely into gas demand spikes.
   --- G.R.L. Cowan, hydrogen-to-boron convert
   
   How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?
   
   http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html

   Permalink

3. 

   GRLCowan Posted 1:28 pm
   11 Dec 2007

   11,000 per kWh?What does that mean?
   --- G.R.L. Cowan, hydrogen-to-boron convert
   
   How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?
   
   http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html
   
   

   Permalink

4. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 1:52 pm
   11 Dec 2007

   Is Nuclear power really cheap thoughIs Nuclear power really cheap though?
   
   Or is it just a subsidized pig?
   
   http://greyfalcon.net/h2nuke

   Permalink

5. 

   amazingdrx Posted 2:36 pm
   11 Dec 2007

   ExcellentGreat information.  Offshore wind is rated as more expensive than nuclear and IGCC, but are their any IGCC plants with sequestration online?
   And of course as fuel and waste disposal costs rise, wind gets cheaper by comparison.  as it shows if carbon is taxed or carbon free energy production credits given, the cost can be equalized right now.  Impelling a huge boom.
   He points out too that the US has enough land space for now.  Plenty of installation can be done on the great plains without NIMBY objections or more expensive offshore machines.
   I think that by combining floating platforms offshore that collect wave energy and ocean current energy, with wind power.  The offshore cost might even be less per kwh than land based wind.  More kwh per installation.
   One thing I'm wondering is he talks about in his other articles is the need to build even bigger wind machines.  Who is working on this now?
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

6. 

   amazingdrx Posted 2:53 pm
   11 Dec 2007

   Cost and mass productionOne more consideration, is it cheaper to drill and anchor towers into sensitive marine areas, as in the cape wind project:  or simply tow a floating installation offshore and anchor it, running the power and control cable along the bottom into shore.  The floating installation does very little damage to the ocean bottom and involves no underwater construction.
   Another factor, it is much easier to mass produce the floating installations in shipyards.  Remember the liberty ships of WW 2, another great example of industrial might winning the day.
   The units are towed out, anchored, and connected to the grid.  If installation is flawed or problematic in anyway, they can easily be moved.  or even towed in for rebuilding.  This is a much easier process than land installation.
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

7. 

   Nucbuddy Posted 2:58 pm
   11 Dec 2007

   Nuclear power - an awesome return on investmentGreyFlcn,
   
   
   
   
   Over the past two decades, the United States has produced some 14 trillion kWh (about 700 billion kWh/year), of nuclear electricity. At 3 cents/kWh, that electricity was worth $420 billion dollars. Your link's Public Citizen link says that nuclear energy has been given only $74 billion in subsidies between 1948 and 1998.
   Would you consider a $420 billion return on $74 billion to be a poor investment?
   
   

   Permalink

8. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 3:44 pm
   11 Dec 2007

   There moreActually, that $74 billion was only the R&D subsidies.

   Permalink

9. 

   amazingdrx Posted 3:59 pm
   11 Dec 2007

   Add a few trillionTack on a few trillion to clean up the radioactive mess, then store it for 10,000 years.  Secure storage.  
   Yucca mountain already cost over 50 billion and it is yet to be finished, maybe it never will since it is unsafe.  
   How much to build really secure storage?  300 billion?  How much to transport all the cleaned up waste and decommisioned reactor parts to storage?  Trillions?  What about fees to run the storage for 10,000 years?  100 billion per year?  Times 10,000 years?  
   Seems like it might be too expensive.
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

10. 

    Nucbuddy Posted 4:00 pm
    11 Dec 2007

    nGreyFlcn wrote: There more
    How much more -- another trillion?
    
    

    Permalink

11. 

    Nucbuddy Posted 4:03 pm
    11 Dec 2007

    nAmazingdrx wrote: Tack on a few trillion to clean up the radioactive mess
    What radioactive mess are you referring to?
    Amazingdrx wrote: then store it for 10,000 years.
    Why would one store something for 10,000 years?
    
    

    Permalink

12. 

    amazingdrx Posted 4:21 pm
    11 Dec 2007

    It floats!http://www.hydro.com/library/attachments/en/press_room/fl ...
    PDF, it takes a while to get but it's worth it.  5 mw floating wind machines with all the specs.
    I have seen rumors of 20 mw machines in the works in Europe.   Bigger machines could be more economically mounted offshore.   Towing on water, the fully assembled machine, is much easier than transporting pieces on land and assembling them onsite.  As happens in onshore or shallow water/tower installation.
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

13. 

    amazingdrx Posted 12:48 am
    12 Dec 2007

    Nuke leakage list with pictureshttp://www.sprol.com/?cat=17
    The horrifying disaster of nuclear contracting as usual.  No terror group could ever acomplish contamination on this massive scale no matter how many dirty bombs they constructed from this waste and leakage free for the taking.  
    They don't even have to break into a secure facility, nuclear contractor negligence has it available from the environment.
    Nuclear contractor/government terror!  Once again.  We see the enemy, it is US.  Our government and nuclear industry has spread this contamination to sites all over the world.
    And now this provides a convenient excuse for lying war mongers like the cheney administration to invade whichever nations that have nuclear facilities they might think are lucrative targets for "contracting", like Iran.  "Mushroom clouds", they scream (lie)!   Yikes.  
    Even after the oil is gone, finally ending endless oil wars for freedom, the nuclear waste sites will leak on.  Invasions can be mounted anytime at any of these locations.  Why?  Terrorists might get a hold of the stuff.  Hehey.
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

14. 

    BILL HANNAHAN Posted 8:30 am
    12 Dec 2007

    Eliminate nuclear power subsidies Is Nuclear power really cheap though?
    
    Or is it just a subsidized pig?
    
    http://greyfalcon.net/h2nuke
    by GreyFlcn
    I'm with you Gray. Lets eliminate that huge half billion or so subsidy for nuclear and make it stand or fall on its own merits.
    While were at it lets forget about the $5 billion in taxes  and fees collected by local state and federal government agencies on the sale of nuclear power.
    But nuclear power is one of our cheapest sources of electricity,
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat8p2.html ...
     so lets add one cent / kWh of nuclear power for exclusive use of nuclear power R&D and support of new nuclear plants construction.
    That would be $7.9 billion / year.
    P.S.  Don't try this approach with renewables, the cash flow would be pitiful.
    
    
    
    

    Permalink

15. 

    Tasermons Partner Posted 10:09 am
    12 Dec 2007

    May be expensive off New York......but here in Texas they're already constructing several offshore wind farms, and they sure as heck aren't costing a billion dollars to construct.  Plus, they get built alot faster than nuclear plants do.  Nuclear takes several years to go through the rgulatory process alone, and several more years to construct.  It usually takes at the very least a decade to go from concept to built, and usulally mouch longer.  The offshore windfarms take justa few years to develop.

    Permalink

16. 

    Nucbuddy Posted 1:24 pm
    12 Dec 2007

    500MW Texas offshore wind $billionsTasermons Partner wrote: May be expensive off New York [...] but here in Texas they're already constructing several offshore wind farms
    ...Like this one?
    
    mexiadailynews.com/statenews/local_story_164103320.html
    Published: June 13, 2007
    
    Developer cites cost in nixing offshore wind farm in South Texas
    
    [...]
    
    Plans to build what would have been the nation's largest offshore wind farm in South Texas have been called off because the multibillion-dollar project didn't make economic sense, the developer said Monday.
    John Calaway, chief development officer for Babcock & Brown Ltd., the Australian investment bank, said the company notified the state a month ago it was giving up its 30-year lease on nearly 40,000 acres in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Padre Island.
    
    [...]
    
    ``We just don't see the economics working offshore in Texas,'' Calaway said, noting the project cost would have been ``in the billions.''
    He said offshore wind farms on the East Coast, such as a proposed project off the coast of Massachusetts, are more logical and potentially viable because of land constraints and higher energy prices in the region.
    The now-defunct Texas project called for construction of about 170 turbines, each 400 feet tall, with the capacity to generate 500 megawatts of energy -- enough to power about 125,000 homes.
    Babcock is moving on with an onshore wind farm in South Texas' Kenedy County, a $700 million-plus venture that calls for 157 turbines on thousands of acres, Calaway said. He noted the expense of building an offshore farm can be more than double the cost of one on land.
    
    Tasermons Partner wrote: they sure as heck aren't costing a billion dollars to construct.
    Check the quote, above. It says that a 500 megawatt Texas offshore windfarm would have cost "in the billions".
    
    

    Permalink

17. 

    Tasermons Partner Posted 1:42 pm
    12 Dec 2007

    Actually, I refering to......several projects currently off the coast of Galveston and Sabine Pass.  That project for South Texas near Padre Island was different one.  There was also some behind the scenes politics for the cancellation of the South Padre project which tainted it's potential alittle.

    Permalink

18. 

    BILL HANNAHAN Posted 3:08 am
    13 Dec 2007

    The price is going up
    
      the installed cost of an onshore wind project is projected to increase from an actual cost of Euro 1540/kw in 2003 to a forecasted cost of Euro 2940/kw by 2013. For an improving technology in a growing marketplace, this cost trend is clearly opposite of what should be expected. ...
    also stated by Vestas was that players in the offshore wind industry have learned from their previous projects that they substantially underestimated actual costs and implementation risks (e.g., bad weather or heavy seas limiting installation productivities), and are now building "more realistic" contingency cushions into the economic projections of upcoming projects.  
    http://www.cleantechblog.com/2007/12/offshore-wind-report ...
    That's $4,330 U.S. dollars / kw of onshore wind. Assuming a .35 capacity factor, the cost / kw output is $12,370.
    The cost for an average 990MW of output, equal to a large coal or nuc plant, is $12.2 billion. With luck they will last half as long as a nuc plant.
    The cost of offshore windfarms will be much higher than the price quoted above, probably about double. That might explain this.
     On 5 December 2007, the German Cabinet presented its final draft of the Renewable Energies Act (EEG):
    Initial feed-in tariffs for offshore wind energy projects are supposed to be raised from 9.1 ct/kWh at present to 14 ct/kWh if the respective wind turbines are commissioned by 31 December 2013.
    http://www.repower.de/index.php?id=348&uid=1602&L ...
    This is in euros, so figure 20.58 cents / kWh U.S.
    If U.S. nuclear plants got the same deal they would raise an additional $162 billion per year.
    Good luck Brits, hang on to your wallets.
    
    
    
    

    Permalink