The Offshore Wind Debacle: Out of Control Costs and Impacts

The Offshore Wind Debacle: Out of Control Costs and Impacts

Roger Caiazza (on the subject of)
Independent Researcher and Publisher,
Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York

 

…

[Editor’s Note: The offshore wind bubble is bursting and revealing the debacle the whole scam really is, with out of control costs, big environmental impacts and no plan at all.]

One of the important renewable energy components of the net-zero transition in New York’s Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act(Climate Act) is offshore wind. A couple of months ago I wrote an articlethat described some offshore wind issues.  Since then, other issues have come up that I think deserve to be highlighted.

I have been following the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 350 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  I have devoted a lot of time to the Climate Act because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that the net-zero transition will do more harm than good.  The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Climate Act Background

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  It includes an interim 2030 reduction target of a 40% reduction by 2030 and a requirement that all electricity generated be “zero-emissions” by 2040. The Climate Action Council is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlines how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.”  In brief, that plan is to electrify everything possible using zero-emissions electricity.

The Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantifies the impact of the electrification strategies.  That material was used to develop the Draft Scoping Plan.  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan recommendations were finalized at the end of 2022.  In 2023 the Scoping Plan recommendations are supposed to be implemented through regulation and legislation.

Off Shore Wind (OSW) will be a major renewable resource in the net-zero electric energy system.  The Climate Act mandates 9,000 MW of Off Shore Wind (OSW) generating capacity by 2035.  The Integration Analysis modeling used to develop the Scoping Plan projects OSW capacity at 6,200 MW by 2030, 9,096 MW by 2035 and reaches 14,364 MW in 2040.

On the other hand, the New York Independent System Operator 2021-2040 System & Resource Outlook expects 5,036 MW in 2030 and 9,000 MW in 2035 with no additional development after that.  By 2030 the Integration Analysis predicts that 14% of the electric energy (GWh) produced will come from OSW and the Resource Outlook predicts nearly as much (12%).  This is an extraordinary build-out for a resource that is currently non-existent and there are significant differences in the buildout projections that deserve to be reconciled.

Offshore Wind Environmental Impacts

One of the topics in my last article addressed environmental impacts.   I described Jim Lovgren’s article at FisheryNation.com that covered OSW environmental issues: Offshore Wind Electrical Substations; The Secret, Silent Killers.  One of the key issues is ocean noise from sonar surveys and driving ocean pile foundations.  Kevin Kilty provided some follow up information that I have been meaning to publish since then.

In his first email Kevin expressed concern with some of the statements in the Fishery Nation piece:

I did find some puzzling statements from your links to FisheryNation.com. First there is the quoted sound level of 260dB. There is no mention of this being sound pressure level or sound intensity, but 260dB is far beyond any noise source that I am familiar with and is not even reasonable. As the 0dB sound intensity level is a power density level of 1.0 picowatt per square meter, 260dB sound intensity would be 26 powers of ten greater which would be 100 billion watts per square meter. No material could transmit such a power level, and no energy source could produce such. Even the Saturn V lift vehicle was estimated as 200 dB on the pad, but this is only a modeled estimate and could not be measured. I have no idea how people arrived at 260dB nor what bit of data they may have mangled or what they were thinking — it’s just not a credible statement as it stands.

Now, this is not to say that pile driving is not a problem. I think it is and particularly so for ocean mammals. Ocean mammals have some air filled cavities, and the acoustic interface between a low density and low speed of sound gas against a high density high speed of sound liquid takes place in living tissue. I think there is potential for trouble, but as yet I have done no literature research to inform me. We’ll see. My experience is with ultrasonic cleaners punching holes in semiconductor materials  when set at too high a power level.

Then there is the issue of AC/DC conversion equipment using a once through cooling scheme. Once through cooling was a problem that old (pre-1960s) power plants presented because of the rise in temperature of discharged water and the amount of water used, especially from rivers. This led to the development of evaporative cooling and the hyperbolic profile cooling towers so visible at thermal plants. A further development along these lines would be fin-fan cooling of thermal power plants but I know of no thermal plants using fin-fans as yet — at least no utility scale plants. AC/DC conversion is an order of magnitude smaller problem than open cycle cooling of turbine discharge in a thermal plant.  It is easier to handle. Take a 1,000MWe nuclear plant as an example. It operates at around 35% efficiency which is to say that 65% of the thermal energy has to be removed from the cycle by the cooling system. As 1000MWe at 35% efficiency is 2,860MWt, the 65% dissipated energy is then 1,860MW heat energy. Now take a power AC/DC converter handling 1,000MWe. Its over 90% efficient (maybe 92%), but let’s just use 90% as an illustration. 10% of the electrical energy is converted to heat and dissipated. Thus, around 100MW. So, you can see it is a much smaller problem that would be more localized. I’m not in favor of a once-through cycle cooling system, but comparing it to the issue that a thermal plant would raise once again leads to statements that aren’t credible.

Subsequently, he followed up with another email that provided more detail and three reference papers: (here, here, and here).  Kevin wrote:

I like to think I know quite a lot about acoustics but what I know is acoustics in air. I learned something I didn’t know before, which is that underwater sound pressure levels (SPL) use a different point of reference (0dB) than do SPL values in air. In water the reference is 1 micro-Pascal of pressure and in air the reference is 20 micro-Pascal. This, as one reference points out, has led to confusion upon occasion. Also, in air we use a reference for intensity measurements (0dB) of one picowatt per meter squared. There appears to be no reference for the intensity for underwater sound. In other words, when speaking of dB level underwater we are always speaking of pressure levels.

Pile driving will produce SPL of 200+ dB, but the measurements pertain to a point very close to the pile itself. Moreover, the actual measurements of SPL pertain to the installation of much smaller turbines than what we are now speaking of with the East coast installations. The SPL levels will undoubtedly rise and the radius at which a given level is attained will be larger too.

Both these factors will increase the distance at which sea mammals can hear the sounds and at which these sounds will impact their behavior. Even if construction companies implement the sorts of strategies that the one paper outlines to reduce the possibility of injury to hearing, you and I probably think the changes in behavior are every bit as worrisome. In my case I worry about behavioral changes among mule deer, pronghorn and wapiti leading to reduced range and carrying capacity; in the case of ocean mammals, it is is fear and panic etc., leading to stranding and collisions with ships.

What I see is that some of the issues raised by Fisherynation.com are due to misunderstanding of acoustics, as I suspected, but I was a bit ignorant about the difference in reference levels between air and water (such is technology). I doubt the level of 260dB is realistic as it appears to be an extrapolation to near zero radius of the sound sources which really have a typical dimension of a meter at least.

Nonetheless, there is real reason to worry about sound sources that don’t drop into background noise level for distances beyond 40km in the ocean, and whose actual values place to place are very difficult to estimate because of the complexities of propagation in shallow water. It is similar to the issues I have with using ISO9613-2 as a “standard” to estimate sound nuisance for wind turbines above the complex terrain of the mountainous West.  You know, I suppose, that ocean mammals are the descendants of land ungulates like the big game in the West?

One of the takeaway messages from my post describing the  Citizens Campaign for the Environment virtual forum entitled Whale Tales and Whale Facts was that ongoing monitoring programs are not being funded adequately.  Meghan Rickard, Marine Zoologist, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation described the baseline monitoring program that the New York State did (video at 11:55 of the recording).  She said there is no long-term data but whale deaths seem to be increasing especially in the New York Bight.

The emphasis of the New York Department of Environmental Conservation has been on baseline monitoring but they are planning to continue to monitor.  Unfortunately, she noted that the funding available is half of what was available for the baseline.  In my opinion, given that there is substantial evidence that offshore wind development could adversely impact whales the failure to adequately monitor this problem is a criminal dereliction of duty by New York State.  The onus is on the State to prove that there is not a problem.  Waiting to see if that is reality may have irreversible consequences.

Offshore Wind Radar Interference

At a recent meeting a question was raised about offshore wind turbines and radar interference.  Greg Lampman who heads up the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) offshore wind program said something along the lines of “it’s a problem for land-based turbines but not for off-shore turbines”.  I followed up asking some questions and include this summary of what I found in my update.

I contacted Greg to see if he had any references.  He didn’t but Liz Hanna at NYSERDA responded  with a couple:

I located this USDOE study completed in 2013:  Assessment of Offshore Wind Farm Effects on Sea Surface, Subsurface, and Airborne Electronic Systems.  It does look like the authors were fairly confident in being able to mitigate any offshore wind project impacts on land-based radar systems in weather, air traffic control, and long-range surveillance.  The study did find some potential impacts on electromagnetic systems (see executive summary).

There was also a Aviation and Radar Assets Study conducted as part of the NYS offshore wind master plan in 2017.

I contacted another source who does radar work for a defense contractor.  He explained:

The big issue with this stuff is that the turbines are moving fast enough to give a radar return with a Doppler response of something much faster than anything that would be considered ground clutter.   His experience is that it is possible to mitigate most of the effects of a nearby wind farm through some signal processing techniques (probably like the “software” changes mentioned in one of the earlier emails here) but it could never completely get rid of the entire issue.

With respect to modern military radar though they have advanced capabilities, any of which will have the ability to create multiple beams adapted to the environment to help with dealing with this sort of thing.  Their main concern is intentional jamming so dealing with wind turbine clutter is much less of a problem.

He did say that he did not understand the comment that over water is easier than over land.  Off-shore turbines are bigger and moving faster on the ends so should have more of an impact.  Maybe coastal radar looking overwater uses different waveforms that are more susceptible?  I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s really just the end result of no-one bothering with overland stuff.  There’s likely redundant coverage and a lot of overland systems are not looking at the horizon at long ranges the way coastal radars do.

One final note.  He thought that DOD would need to give a final ok on anything if there are military radars nearby.  Commercial radar could overcome any problems with extra radars to provide coverage behind the clutter from one site.

In my opinion, this probably is not that much of an issue.

Offshore Wind Power Isn’t “Clean and Green”

Craig Rucker summarized OSW problems in Offshore Wind Power Isn’t ‘Clean and Green,’ and It Doesn’t Cut CO2 Emissions.  He explains:

A single 12 MW (megawatts) offshore wind turbine is taller than the Washington Monument, weighs around 4,000 tons, and requires mining and processing millions of tons of iron, copper, aluminum, rare earths and other ores, with much of the work done in Africa and China using fossil fuels and near slave labor.

Relying on wind just to provide electricity to power New York state on a hot summer day would require 30,000 megawatts. That means 2,500 Haliade-X 12 MW offshore turbines and all the materials that go into them. Powering the entire U.S. would require a 100 times more than that.

These numbers are huge, but the situation is actually much worse.

This is because offshore turbines generate less than 40% of their “rated capacity.” Why? Because often there’s no wind at all for hours or days at a time. This requires a lot of extra capacity, which means a lot more windmills will have to be erected to charge millions of huge batteries, to ensure stable, reliable electricity supplies.

Once constructed, those turbines would hardly be earth or human friendly, either. They would severely impact aviation, shipping, fishing, submarines, and whales. They are hardly benign power sources.

He quotes an analysis by David Wojick that when life cycle emissions are considered, OSW “will likely increase global CO2 emissions.”  The first issue is that until magical dispatchable and emissions free resources can backup the intermittent offshore wind, fossil-fired backup plants will have to operate inefficiently with higher CO2 emissions. Rucker explains that Wojick argues:

Second, building huge offshore wind facilities requires mining, processing, smelting, fabrication, installation, repair, replacement, decommissioning, landfilling – and transportation every step of the way. Almost everything up to installation is increasingly done overseas, nearly 100% with fossil fuels and few emission controls.

Wojick calculates that every OSW turbine installation will 14,000 tons of CO2 “just for the steel and concrete – not including the other wind turbine and electricity transmission components”.  Once the development CO2 emissions for energy storage and ancillary services are included the emissions will be even higher.  Rucker concludes: “Dr. Wojick’s study exposes the frightening fact that an honest, complete analysis of offshore wind costs and benefits, including purported atmospheric CO2 reductions, has never even been attempted.”

I want to make one other point.  The Climate Act mandates that all GHG emission sources incorporate life-cycle analyses into the energy planning process.  There is not similar requirement for wind, solar and energy storage technology so any comparisons in the Scoping Plan are biased.

OSW Costs

There have been many recent reports about OSW costs over the summer.  David Wojick describes the OSW cost crisis:

The horrific term “cost crisis” is not from me. It comes down from on high, in this case the mega-conference: US Offshore Wind 2023. Specifically the “DEVELOPER LEADERS KEYNOTE PANEL” which features this chilling title: “Tackling The Cost Crisis Through Assessing Investment Risks”. See https://events.reutersevents.com/renewable-energy/offshore-wind-usa/agenda

So there are three converging factors. Higher material and equipment costs, higher interest rates and political resistance. For example it has not gone unnoticed that the House Republicans are trying to roll back the lush subsidies granted under the amusingly named Inflation Reduction Act.

Local resistance is growing as well. The biggest developer offshore America is Ørsted and they are now suing New Jersey’s Cape May County and Atlantic City for withholding local permits needed to bring a big project’s power ashore. Anti-offshore wind demonstrations are becoming a common occurrence in coastal towns.

Of particular interest is the Dominion Energy project off Virginia. This is a huge 5,200 MW, 300 square mile, proposal just 15 miles off the world’s biggest naval base at Norfolk. Unlike the other projects this one is being built by the regulated utility itself, so there is no PPA. Instead the books are open to a degree. This includes some required cost estimates.

Dominion’s pre-crisis cost estimates for the first 2,600 MW were about $10 billion for construction and a bit over $20 billion including financing. The latter is called the “revenue requirement” which means this is the bill their customers will have to pay.

Presumably Dominion will now be required to do new, crisis-laden estimates. If these come in at, say, $14 billion and $28 billion the political reaction could be quite strong. And this assumes things will get no worse, which they easily could. We await with great interest.

There are similar issues in New York.  I have been accumulating information on New York OSW costs that deserves its own post.  Stay tuned.

Conclusion

Off shore wind development is a key component of the Climate Act net-zero transition.  This post raises points that encapsulate my problems with the whole transition.  There have been inadequate analyses for the environmental impacts.  The costs appear to be out of control.  I did not include a reliability description associated with OSW but consider this.  What happens if we build 14,364 MW of OSW capacity by 2040 and a hurricane comes along the next year and wipes a large portion of it out of service? 

Considering these challenges and risks against the background that New York’s contribution to global GHG emissions is less than the annual rate of increase in global emissions, my frustration is unbounded.  Is it too much to ask Albany politicians and Climate Act proponents to document the the environmental tradeoffs, expected costs, and the potential risks to reliable energy of the net zero transition called for in the Climate Act? 

[Editor’s Note: Read Roger’s followup post here for stunning details on the financial fiasco that is offshore wind. It is pure fantasy and a total boondoggle that only benefits grifters, many of whom come from outside of the U.S. in search of green eggs and scam.]

Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York.  This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated.

The post The Offshore Wind Debacle: Out of Control Costs and Impacts appeared first on Natural Gas Now. This post appeared first on Natural Gas Now.