Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power United States

New York Signs Biggest Offshore Wind Project Deal In the Nation (bloomberg.com) 154

Posted by BeauHD from the aggressive-clean-power-targets dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: New York has signed the biggest-ever deals for offshore wind power in U.S. history, a key part of the state's plan to get all of its power from emissions-free sources by 2040. On Thursday, Governor Andrew Cuomo awarded contracts for two projects off Long Island that will total 1,700 megawatts in capacity. Equinor ASA and a joint venture between Denmark's Orsted A/S and Massachusetts-based Eversource Energy were chosen to build the farms, which will supply enough power to light up a million homes. Cuomo is counting on the wind projects to achieve the most aggressive clean energy goal in the U.S., and signed the state's 100% renewable energy target into law right after announcing the wind contracts. New York's ultimate plan is to get enough turbines erected off its shores to generate 9,000 megawatts by 2035. The contracted wind farms will be completed by 2024, he said. Based on cost estimates from BloombergNEF, the projects may be valued at more than $5 billion.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New York Signs Biggest Offshore Wind Project Deal In the Nation More

New York Signs Biggest Offshore Wind Project Deal In the Nation

Comments Filter:

  • Pending permits (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Friday July 19, 2019 @08:53PM (#58954594)

    Construction will begin in the early 2020s pending permits

    Which means its all over when some NIMBY on Long Island sues over his view.

    • and dead. It was mostly a couple of Kennedys doing it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      TFA is a bit short on detail, but will they even be visible from land? And is there any legal grounds on which such a NIMBY might avoid having their case thrown out immediately?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You betcha they are going to sue. I cant say about the turbines, but they have to bring the transmission line in somewhere. I'm a power system engineer and I'v done plenty of work all over NY state, and coincidentally, was was just out on long island. Roughly the top half of the island is served from only one end and is just 13kV, and it NEEDS to be 69kV. In hot summer weather, incadence bulbs notesly dim. Real third world stuff. And it is just impossible for LIPA to even upgraded an existing line, ov

  • 1700 MW's of intermittent wind will not offset the Indian Point nuclear plant shutdown (2000 MW). New Yorkers should expect increased air pollution and energy costs along with increased fossil fuel usage. Their grid will also be much more unreliable due to the new wind turbines intermittency. Cuomo is taking New York backwards on climate change, air pollution and reliable energy.
    • And that 1700 MW is capacity; it's really about 600 MW once you factor in the capacity factor.
      • More like 700 MW. It's offshore.
        • OK, I guess 700 is better than 600, but both are woefully under the trumpeted 1700 in TFS... Doesn't sound as good saying it's an installation of 700 MW of typical generation, does it?

      • A capacity factor has nothing to do with capacity.

        If the wind is right it easy reaches that capacity, or even exceeds it drastically.

        Perhaps you want to read up again what a capacity factor is and what you calculate with it if you actually want/need to calculate something.

        • You REALLY like to be an idiot, don't you? Capacity factor [wikipedia.org] says that, on average, you'll get X% out of the potential generation. For nuclear, it's up around 95-98%. For wind, it's around 30% to 35%. Meaning if you want 1000 MW of actual power, you should plan on installing close to 3500 MW of capacity - so you'll usually have that power available.

          You're just hunting around to score points. and just continuing to show your own ignorance. Give it up - you're an idiot.

          • Obviously you are the idiot here.

            And your numbers are wrong :P

            Perhaps you want to reread your previdous post to which I answered.

            Hint: you are mixing up MW with MWh ... idiot.

            • Are you being intentionally dense? W is instantaneous - capacity factor implies an average over time, thus Wh is needed. Saying you have a 1700 MW plant is irrelevant; what does it actually generate, long-term and what is its average? It's like saying you have a 300 HP car - but it only does that at full throttle and at 5250 RPM. At any other setting, it' actually less. Your capacity is much below... Quit being dense...
              • There is such a thing as average output, you know. You might be surprised by this but the unit of Wh over a period of time is...W.
                • Yes - and how do you relate the average output to the peak capability? HINT: it's two words, one is capacity, the other is factor.
                  • Ah, yes, the capacity factor...the mental masturbation of choice of people who can't handle time series, load curves and grid models.
                    • Or for people who realize that installing 1700 MW of capacity, but with a capacity factor of 40%, means you're not going to be able to count on 1700 MW of supply at any given time - but probably 700 MW. No mental masturbation about it - it's the fundamental principle of power supply design (capacitor/inductors are used to store energy for burst power, so the continuous power of the switch/transformer can be lower). Let me guess - you're a programmer, right?
                    • This has actually nothing to do with "fundamental principle of power supply design", but rather with weather patterns. The turbines are perfectly happy with continuous output at their rated levels, that's what they're built for. And if you really care about the output, you're not going to bother with such simplistic measures as the capacity factor. You're going to look at your realistic needs and realistic outputs, which are not described by a single number but rather with a time series.
                    • Capacity factor IS the single number that summarizes the results of the realistic output over time of a generator, you moron.
                    • That's what also makes it almost useless and an academic masturbation.
                    • And there we have it. You demand to have a time series averaging of power used, but when it's pointed out repeatedly that you've been arguing against that very thing - you toss it all away. You're really a piece of work...

                  • Yes - and how do you relate the average output to the peak capability? HINT: it's two words, one is capacity, the other is factor.

                    Wrong.

                    For a 10MW turbine rated for 8m/sec windspeed, it will produce 10MW at 8m/sec wind speed. Woops that was so easy again. As it is most likely rated for a top wind speed of somewhat like 100km/h, 130km/h gusts, that would be: 30m/sec the theoretical upper limit would be something like 160MW. Obviously you don't let it rotate so quick and turn the blades out of the wind.

                    You si

              • CF does not imply an average over time.
                It implies an integral over time.

                Why are you using terms you don't grasp?

                The powerplant in question is rated for 1700MW at a certain wind speed.
                And sure as hell is ice cold, at thatnwind speed, it will produce the rated power. Your stupid CF does not change anything about that. And then again, if the wind speed doubkes, it produces 8 times the power, fuck your CF.

                Go back to 8th grade when integral and differential calculations got introduced.

                Hint: learn the difference

                • CF does not imply an average over time. It implies an integral over time.

                  An average *is* by definition an integral measure (I'm not sure if I got the English term correct, though).

              • Capacity is a similar concept to the 300 HP car at 5250 RPM as you stated. Wind turbines are rated with a power output at a specific wind speed.

                What you also need to know is the utilisation of the wind turbine to know how much power the wind turbine is actually producing. At an instant, the utilisation can be 0% to 100% of the capacity so there is no point in using an average yearly rating for a power grid what manages power in the order of minutes.

                Next you will be saying that solar can never reach 100% cap

          • You REALLY like to be an idiot, don't you?

            Oh, the irony...

            For nuclear, it's up around 95-98%.

            Except the plant debated in this thread has a 73% lifetime capacity factor.

            For wind, it's around 30% to 35%. Meaning if you want 1000 MW of actual power, you should plan on installing close to 3500 MW of capacity - so you'll usually have that power available.

            Offshore wind with 30-35% would be atrocious and uneconomical to build. Today you're looking at 45-60% as your goals for new offshore. New York seems to get ~42% figures. Not great, not terrible.

            • Today you're looking at 45-60% as your goals for new offshore. New York seems to get ~42% figures. Not great, not terrible.

              Citation needed. US and UK both average below 40% [wikipedia.org]. But States often way overestimate their own gains (like assuming pension plans will return 9% interest), in this case estimating much more wind capacity than has been achieved in the US or the UK. And if it was 42%, then it's going to generate 700 MW on average - still well below that touted 1700 MW of capacity.

              • Citation provided. [ny.gov] US is almost exclusively onshore (aside from maybe 30 MW near Rhode Island?), so I don't see how pointing to the existing fleet gets you anywhere when talking about prospective NY offshore plants. And even in the UK, offshore is only 40% of total capacity so you can't infer its capacity factor from the onshore+offshore average either.
                • So they claim 42% - even though there is no data to support that (data supports - at best - mid to high 30s). OK, let's roll with that. So they'll get 700 MW of generation from it. So much for 1700 MW!

      • You are confusing capacity (capability) with utilisation. It is like saying a car has a top speed of 150 MPH, that does not mean that the car is always driven at 150 MPH.

    • It will likely consume lots of fossil fuels, too. (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Don't forget that a huge amount of energy derived from fossil fuels will likely go into building these wind turbines, too. The raw materials will likely be mined using diesel and gasoline powered equipment. The materials will need to be transported long distances, again likely using fossil fuel powered vehicles and ships. The refining and processing of the materials will likely be coal or natural gas powered. The construction equipment will likely require fossil fuels, too. The operation and maintenance wil

      • By your logic we'll never wean ourselves off of fossil fuels because we currently can't produce the equipment that will allow us to get rid of fossil fuels, without fossil fuels. What a sad life it must be, living in such terrible pessimism.

        • By your logic we'll never wean ourselves off of fossil fuels because we currently can't produce the equipment that will allow us to get rid of fossil fuels, without fossil fuels. What a sad life it must be, living in such terrible pessimism.

          At the pace we are going we will in fact not ever wean ourselves from fossil fuels.
          https://business.financialpost... [financialpost.com]

          University of Colorado scientist Roger Pielke Jr. did some of the rough numbers. âoeThere are 11,161 days until 2050. Getting to net zero by 2050 requires replacing one mtoe of fossil fuel consumption every day starting now.â On a global basis, such a transition would require building the equivalent of one new 1.5-gigawatt nuclear plant every day for the next 30 years.

          If not nuclear, then maybe solar? According to a U.S. government site, it takes about three million solar panels to produce one gigawatt of energy, which means that by 2050 the world will need 3,000,000 X 11,865 solar panels to offset fossil fuels. The wind alternative would require about 430 new wind turbines each of the 11,865 days leading to 2050.

          If we assume that the average operational lifespan of those solar panels and wind turbines are 30 years then this means keeping that same pace indefinitely, and that does not include any growth in our energy production.

          I believe that at least in the USA we have enough industrial capacity to get the nation to zero carbon by 2050 using nuclear power. It would require a decision by the powers t

          • If we assume that the average operational lifespan of those solar panels and wind turbines are 30 years then this means keeping that same pace indefinitely, and that does not include any growth in our energy production.

            What same pace are you talking about? For example, the double-digit percentage of increase of annual PV installations, 30% on average? The world already has around 500 GW of cumulative PV capacity. "Keeping the same pace" means reaching current average global electricity generation purely by 15% capacity factor PV around 2032. Sometime by 2040, you've significantly exceeded total energy requirements of an electrified society.

            I believe that at least in the USA we have enough industrial capacity to get the nation to zero carbon by 2050 using nuclear power. It would require a decision by the powers that be that getting to zero carbon by 2050 is very important, and widespread public support.

            You could do that using nuclear power. Or you could do that using solar power and w

            • What same pace are you talking about?

              1.5 gigawatts of new nuclear power capacity in the USA every three weeks. Or, 1.5 gigawatts of new nuclear per day in the world per day.

              For example, the double-digit percentage of increase of annual PV installations, 30% on average? The world already has around 500 GW of cumulative PV capacity. "Keeping the same pace" means reaching current average global electricity generation purely by 15% capacity factor PV around 2032. Sometime by 2040, you've significantly exceeded total energy requirements of an electrified society.

              Is that reaching the rate specified by the article? I doubt it. I believe people are not understanding the magnitude of the problem.

              You could do that using nuclear power.

              Yes, you could.

              Or you could do that using solar power and wind power.

              No, you can't.

              Or all three at once.

              Yes, you can.

              None of it will happen without support. All of it will happen with public support.

              It won't happen without nuclear power in the mix because without nuclear power there is not enough industrial capacity in the world to meet the required production. It won't happen without nuclear p

              • 1.5 gigawatts of new nuclear power capacity in the USA every three weeks. Or, 1.5 gigawatts of new nuclear per day in the world per day.

                But you were talking about wind turbines and solar panels, so I'm not sure how this could be a response to my question about what specific pace of wind and solar power deployment you were talking about.

                Is that reaching the rate specified by the article? I doubt it.

                You don't have to "doubt it"; solar generation increase between 2017 and 2018 was from 435 TWh/y to 570 TWh/y. These 135 TWh/y correspond to the average output of seventeen 1 GW nuclear units with a 90% capacity factor, so that's your one reactor every three weeks. This figure has been robustly increasing by

      • Gosh, if only the amount of energy that went into manufacturing a wind turbine, and its energy output were not unknowable facts, forever beyond the grasp all human kith and kin! Then we might not have to aimlessly speculate about whether they might ever turn an energy-profit!

        Oh... wait. The energy pay-back time for wind turbines is five to eight months [sciencedaily.com], call it six as a round number. Then they operate for 20-25 more years.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Yes, let's look at the energy payback periods for various energy sources.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          Nuclear pays back it's energy debt in 2 months, then it goes on to run for 60 more years. Nuclear has an energy return on investment that is at least 75, compared to off shore wind at 16.

          Just for good measure, let's consider carbon footprint. What does the IPCC say?
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          Interesting, nuclear power has a carbon footprint identical, or nearly so, to that of wind.

          How safe are t

          • The EROI figures are 1) largely somewhat inaccurate guesswork, as evidenced by spreads of various studies, and 2) almost immaterial in practice, as opposed to academical masturbation over whether 100 is better than 20 or not - especially if you don't even know if the 100 figure hasn't been overvalued and the 20 figure undervalued, as per point 1). Also the real world experience betrays their disconnect from reality.

            Mortality rates are going to significantly depend on all the things you count into it. The pa

          • Nuclear pays back it's energy debt in 2 months, then it goes on to run for 60 more years. Nuclear has an energy return on investment that is at least 75, compared to off shore wind at 16.

            By the way, the Weissbach study you're referencing is total bullshit. For example for solar power [rameznaam.com], it assumes 50% curtailment (5% in reality today), it assumes 2005-level energy expenditures for PV panels (they've been slashed by a factor of several), it assumes placing the PV plant in Germany (average return in a random populated location in the world would be higher). Feel free to dissect the problem with it in other areas.

    • 1700/2000 = 85% done with that ONE project. Your claim that the remaining 15% will be heavy pollution is without any evidence. 300 mv is doable via importation or other means, including tidal by NYC. Should you prove right and they decide to use fossil fuels, Natural Gas it the obvious choice, and for 300 MV, should produce about 117 pounds of C02.

      Unreliability is the problem, not the definite prediction. It is caused NOT by the renewable energy sources but instead by stupid decisions made long ago to ma

      • You are mixing up capacity with actual generation. Are you aware that wind has a low capacity factor? So that 1700 would be closer to an unreliable 700. Sometimes the wind turbines will produce 1700 MW's, other times they produce 0.

        The major issue you are missing is that New York is replacing clean energy with clean energy. They should be replacing dirty energy with clean energy. Replacing Indian point with renewables is a terrible idea because New York will still be using fossil fuels. Shutdown all

        • For sake of completeness, the nuclear plant in question has a recent average of 85% CF. So it's around 1700 MW itself. But if you were to compare its lifetime CF, it's 73%, so it's actually more like 1500 MW. Basically it's not producing 27% of the time, lifetime wise.

    • 1700 MW's of intermittent wind will not offset the Indian Point nuclear plant shutdown (2000 MW).

      Yeah I know, it's horrible how there's only a single project underway. /sarcasm

  • And in 15 years (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by anvilmark ( 259376 )

    when they all start needing maintenance / replacement, the providers will declare bankruptcy, walk away and let the public fund the cleanup.

    • Re:And in 15 years (Score:4, Insightful)

      by crunchygranola ( 1954152 ) on Friday July 19, 2019 @11:15PM (#58955014)

      This is a lot of stupid to pack into one sentence.

      First off, why would a company "declare bankruptcy" when offered servicing contracts?

      Do you even realize that this is how all companies that actually make industrial systems work? They get paid for building/making it, then they can bid on further work in maintaining it (usually from a favored bidder status).

      Do you imagine that the fact that mechanical stuff occasionally needs repair is something not generally known, nor taken into account?

      Do you think that wind turbines are created through the Dark Arts and their design and operation are arcane unknowable things? There are many manufacturers of turbines, they know how to service them, even ones built by somebody else. Remember -- big contract, retooling (if needed) is not a problem.

      • Seconded. Many companies will take a hit on their profit margin on the initial install and then make up for it on the annual maintenance fees.

    • These are essentially floating wind turbines. Some of the foundation designs actually allow tow-back to port for servicing and decommissioning. These are pretty easy problems to solve.

    • In New Hampshire, towns siting windmills generally require a bond or deposit be maintained for the life of the project. Problem solved.
    • "walk away and let the public fund the cleanup." - you mean just like the nuclear sites, joe public pays for decommissioning and toxic clean up.

      By the time turbines are due for replacement, the tech would have moved on so much that their generating capability will have multiplied many times. So "the providers will declare bankruptcy" is complete bollox

  • Never happen (Score:2, Insightful)

    by p51d007 ( 656414 )
    Won't happen, won't work, will be zillions over budget. One simple problem with "wind" power is from a STORAGE capacity. With a GENERATOR plant (nuke, water, gas, coal), when demand goes up, you can crank up the generator. With wind, if the wind isn't blowing, or, your battery capacity isn't sufficient, how will you "gen up" the storage capacity to meet peek demand? You won't, which is why you see city after city, town after town, placing "smart meters" on consumer homes & businesses. If the demand ex

    • Wind and solar power is just a proxy for natural gas.

      https://powerpastimpossible.or... [powerpastimpossible.org]

      Aren't renewables the future of energy?

      Renewables certainly are part of a sound energy future. The federal government projects they will supply about 14 percent of our energy in 2050. For renewables such as wind and solar to grow, they need natural gas as a partner â" furnishing a reliable, quick-ramping fuel source when itâ(TM)s cloudy or thereâ(TM)s not enough breeze to turn a windmill. Natural gas checks the boxes.

      There you go, an endorsement of wind and solar energy from the natural gas industry.

      Personally I believe we can avoid this burning of natural gas but we will need to build third generation nuclear power plants now while we do research in fourth generation nuclear power. Fourth generation nuclear promises to offer the ability to load follow, meaning it can allow for the use of wind power with little or no need for natural

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DamonHD ( 794830 )

      With nukes, you generally can't turn them down much (not at all in GB, and only an average of ~25% in France which is pretty sophisticated). And coal can be fairly slow load following.

      GB's last major outage (500k users load shed) was caused by a nuke and then a coal plant tripping out. I'm not aware of any load shedding caused by renewables intermittency in the GB grid. Operators know about it and plan for it. Nukes are definitely useful but NOT a panacea.

      Yes, storage makes and will make a huge differen

      • With nukes, you generally can't turn them down much (not at all in GB, and only an average of ~25% in France which is pretty sophisticated). And coal can be fairly slow load following.

        We can't turn the wind and sun up and down like we wish either. So, what's the point you want to make again?

        Yes, storage makes and will make a huge difference, but enough of the conspiracy theories over smart meter cutoffs and drooling over nukes please.

        Ah, I see. So, we can use batteries with wind and solar but not with nuclear? Or coal? Regardless of the primary source of our energy supply we will need a means to dial the supply up and down to match demand. Right now we are using natural gas as the primary means to do this. In places where natural gas is not so readily available, or hydro is readily available, we use fuel oil and hydro. With

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DamonHD ( 794830 )

          If you can't crank things down on demand then you can't crank them up either (and/or have to throw away lots of energy).

          In that respect nukes and solar/wind are similar: that is my point. You need something else in the mix to make a functioning grid with them.

          Rgds

          Damon

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by MikeMo ( 521697 )
        I’m sorry, but this is simplify not true. Naval nuclear reactors get “turned up and down” all the time, continuously, essentially automatically, as the demand for steam goes up and down. They don’t turn the screw at 100% all the time, after all.

        I know civilian nuclear plants generally run at 100% all the time, but I believe that is because those plants run the most efficiently at 100%, and the demand on the grid exists, so they just supply it.

        Since the US grid is huge and has a l

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DamonHD ( 794830 )

          In the UK only one of our nukes (Sizewell B) is capable of load following AFAIK, but it never has.

          In the French fleet the limit the things can be turned down without unpleasant effects ("Xenon poisoning" IIRC) is about 50% for a new load of fuel, 0% when near expired, thus ~25% overall. Which limits nukes to serving ~75% of peak load since they would not be able to dial back far enough at minimum load.

          Other designs may be different, but less good for civilian use, for example.

          Rgds

          Damon

        • Civilian and naval reactors are completely different things. Completely different technology, completly different way of operations.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by MikeMo ( 521697 )
            Yes, of course, but they could be built in such a way. However, my larger point was that there was no reason to “turn them down” if there is demand on the grid.

    • To make storage useful the wind plant would need 3 times as big.
      And you would need a storage that can store at lest half a days production.

      That plant is to small to need/have use for storage unless for frequency stabilization.

    • Won't happen, won't work, will be zillions over budget.

      Citation needed. Ørsted has built dozens of offshore wind farms already [orsted.com], so if you're right, there should be no shortage of examples.

    • you are ignorant of how power generation works. There are plants on standby that are fired up if say nuke plant goes offline or peak load happens. that's already in place, has been for decades.

      Having wind generation where it's nearly always windy is fine, the older fossil methods can be brought online to take up slack. Much less pollution is made doing so.

      No problem

  • Trump Tower or whichever prison the cheeto in chief ends up in. Maybe the sound they make will give him cancer, too.

    Does he still get Secret Service protection if he spends the rest of his life in jail? What about the rest of his family?

  • The article says the farm is going to be built, "30 miles East of Montauk Point". That puts it practically in Rhode Island. Past New Shoreham, almost due South of Newport.

    So, why is NY involved?

Slashdot Top Deals

All seems condemned in the long run to approximate a state akin to Gaussian noise. -- James Martin

Close