Offshore Wind Firm Cancels New Jersey Projects, As Industry's Prospects Dim 171
Orsted, a Danish offshore wind company, canceled its plans to build two wind farms off the coast of New Jersey -- "a blow to the state's efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the latest shakeout in the U.S. wind industry," reports the New York Times. From the report: The move, which will force Orsted, a Danish company, to write off as much as $5.6 billion, will crimp the Biden administration's plans to make the wind industry a critical component of plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. High inflation and soaring interest rates are making planned projects that looked like winners several years ago no longer profitable. "The world has in many ways, from a macroeconomic and industry point of view, turned upside down," Mads Nipper, Orsted's chief executive, said on a call with reporters on Wednesday.
The two projects, known as Ocean Wind 1 and 2, were destined to provide green energy to New Jersey. They were strongly backed by the state's governor, Phil Murphy, a Democrat with national ambitions who stresses his environmental credentials but who has lately drawn scorn for falling short in combating climate change. On Wednesday he suggested that Orsted was a dishonest broker and insisted that the "future of offshore wind" along the state's 130-mile coastline remained strong. Mr. Nipper said Orsted thought that losses on the New Jersey projects would rise over time, so "the only sensible thing is to draw a line in the sand."
Offshore wind and other parts of the renewable industry have hit some snags in Europe, especially in Britain. But Mr. Nipper said the problems were more acute in the United States because early contracts lacked protection from inflation and developers incurred high costs because of delays in approvals during the Trump administration. The company's stock price fell nearly 26 percent on Wednesday after it reported a loss of about $3.2 billion for the third quarter and warned that the write-downs -- essentially a reduction in the value of the company's investments -- would affect Orsted's finances. Orsted is writing off 28.4 billion krone, or about $4 billion, now. The company estimates that it may take another charge of up to 11 billion krone later in the year. The report notes that Orsted still plans to move forward with a $4 billion project called Revolution Wind intended to supply power to consumers in Rhode Island. Other projects are under construction, too, "like Vineyard Wind, which will eventually have 62 turbines in the waters off Martha's Vineyard, Mass."
The two projects, known as Ocean Wind 1 and 2, were destined to provide green energy to New Jersey. They were strongly backed by the state's governor, Phil Murphy, a Democrat with national ambitions who stresses his environmental credentials but who has lately drawn scorn for falling short in combating climate change. On Wednesday he suggested that Orsted was a dishonest broker and insisted that the "future of offshore wind" along the state's 130-mile coastline remained strong. Mr. Nipper said Orsted thought that losses on the New Jersey projects would rise over time, so "the only sensible thing is to draw a line in the sand."
Offshore wind and other parts of the renewable industry have hit some snags in Europe, especially in Britain. But Mr. Nipper said the problems were more acute in the United States because early contracts lacked protection from inflation and developers incurred high costs because of delays in approvals during the Trump administration. The company's stock price fell nearly 26 percent on Wednesday after it reported a loss of about $3.2 billion for the third quarter and warned that the write-downs -- essentially a reduction in the value of the company's investments -- would affect Orsted's finances. Orsted is writing off 28.4 billion krone, or about $4 billion, now. The company estimates that it may take another charge of up to 11 billion krone later in the year. The report notes that Orsted still plans to move forward with a $4 billion project called Revolution Wind intended to supply power to consumers in Rhode Island. Other projects are under construction, too, "like Vineyard Wind, which will eventually have 62 turbines in the waters off Martha's Vineyard, Mass."
same as in MA (Score:2, Flamebait)
we had similar setbacks here on Cape Cod. The locals are all complaining about fears that the cables running UNDER their beach (Dowse's Beach) will somehow hurt them. They... the old folk baking in the sun without sunscreen. Puke.
Re:same as in MA (Score:4, Informative)
Now the windmills feature in all their tourism marketing and are a source of local pride. People can be bloody stupid.
Stupid for thinking anyone's minds have changed (Score:3, Insightful)
A town near me threw a giant childish tantrum when the local power company expressed a desire to build a wind farm on hills near them. Now the windmills feature in all their tourism marketing and are a source of local pride. People can be bloody stupid.
Welll, stupid for thinking anyone's minds have changed with respect to being for or against the turbines. Politicians are just playing with the cards they were dealt. The turbines are in place, its best to try to manufacture a positive image. Especially while they are all new and shiny and working. When they fall into disrepair and are no longer spinning the literature will probably change again.
Disrepair and inactive is what we have on our local hills where a wind farm was installed decades ago.
Re: (Score:2)
One thing that can really help with local support is some low cost energy for everyone affected. Give them a discount on their bills in exchange for having the turbines.
It works for other forms of generation, where they provide local employment, district heating, and other benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its just NIMBY (Score:3)
The Tesla and Prius drivers in my town also don't like electric transmission lines. I'd call them uneducated except that they're all quite thoroughly credentialed. I'll just stick to my old schoolyard go-to: retards.
They will probably say the lines should be underground, and rates should not increase to make it so.
It's just NIMBY, they intellectually want the green tech but they don't want their expensive views spoiled with infrastructure. Visible infrastructure is for plebes not the elites.
Re: (Score:2)
The Tesla and Prius drivers in my town also don't like electric transmission lines.
From a self identified RightWingNutjob, this is credible. What a weird coincidence teh libruhls are all just awful don't you know.
Re: (Score:2)
The Tesla and Prius drivers in my town also don't like electric transmission lines
Putting them underground is more aesthetically pleasing and reduces probability of outages due to storms, squirrels, etc. It also costs more.
Don't get how wanting transmission lines underground is somehow hypocritical when driving an EV?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get how wanting transmission lines underground is somehow hypocritical when driving an EV?
Buggered if I know.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get how wanting transmission lines underground is somehow hypocritical when driving an EV?
It is much more expensive. If you want wind and solar because they are supposedly the "cheapest" generation systems why would you want any different for your distribution systems?
Visible infrastructure is for plebes not elites (Score:5, Informative)
we had similar setbacks here on Cape Cod. The locals are all complaining about fears that the cables running UNDER their beach (Dowse's Beach) will somehow hurt them.
No. That's the BS they say in public. In private it's all about having their expensive views spoiled by infrastructure. It's just NIMBY, visible infrastructure is for plebes not elites. They paid a crapload of money for those ocean views. Their real fear is that in a decade or two turbines will decline into disrepair and become inactive. Further reducing the value of their view.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, they never complain about ugly coal plants spewing smoke or strip mining - precisely because they cant see that. That stuff happens in poor parts of their state, or other states altogether who are by defnition not as good as their home state.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: same as in MA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The lowest form of human life inhabits the state house. You will never find a a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.....
I raise you, one US Federal Government.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's because we have a large proportion of stupid and/or ignorant people, which provides a strong political base for those who exploit it. It's not that Americans as a whole are stupid, that's certainly not true as there are very bright and very education people here. But we have had a long long history of mostly being an isolationist country, a distrustful country, one that since WWII at least has exported culture but which is also hesitant to import it. Of course, this all comes and goes with political
Re: (Score:3)
It's because we have a large proportion of stupid and/or ignorant people
They feel the same about you. Funny how that works. The truth is still usually in the middle.
If they really wanted stuff built, they'd start (Score:4, Interesting)
by undoing some of the last 50 years' worth of "environmental" laws that place reviews and impact statements and the possibility of years of lawsuits in series with anything and everything, from running a power line to building a turbine.
But they don't do this. Either because they don't really want to build stuff, just talk about it, or because they really have no clue why these regulations are a problem, or even because they expect themselves or their friends to line their pockets filing these lawsuits and/or defending against them.
Probably a healthy mix of all three. Usually mostly harmless when it's government being government, except that now it's costing people large sums of money.
The reason I'm not a fan of this green new deal stuff is I'm not looking forward to the day when my car breaks down or my furnace gives out and thanks to the same raging nonsense that cost these developers billions, I'll be SOL because my only option for repair or replacement is some mandatory all-electric gizmo that only works half the time, costs more than twice as much, and has a years long waitlist, as I discovered recently when looking into ground source heatpumps.
Re:If they really wanted stuff built, they'd start (Score:5, Insightful)
Texas proves your point. Texas is a state hardly anyone would associate with "green" energy. Yet it has 3x more wind power than any other state. https://www.inspirecleanenergy... [inspirecleanenergy.com]
Why this paradox? Because Texas has fewer regulations to block green energy, much to the chagrin of many state politicians.
Re: (Score:3)
The stupid, it burns.
No, the real reason for the "paradox" is this map:
https://windexchange.energy.go... [energy.gov]
Texas has a fuckload of wind compared to California. About 90% of Texas has wind speed which is greater than all but a tiny number of the absolute best locations in California.
This has fuck all to do with regulations and everything to do with geography.
Re: (Score:2)
Refer back to the original article, which is about regulations and lawsuits causing two major wind farm projects to be canceled in New Jersey.
If your map showed the only reason for Texas' lead in wind power, then how do you explain the fact that Texas is also building the most solar power of any state? (Yes, California currently *has* more, but Texas has taken the lead in new solar installations.) https://www.ecowatch.com/solar... [ecowatch.com]
Re: (Score:2)
> then how do you explain the fact that Texas is also building the most solar power of any state?
A completely jacked power infrastructure run by a corrupt monopoly that has proven completely unwilling to invest in their equipment and all to happy to charge people thousands of times the normal prices in times of crisis has made some people realize maybe they could improve their lot by being a little more self-sufficient. Not surprising that the demand for domestic batteries (which enable solar PV to conti
Re: (Score:2)
Texas solar power is primarily large solar farms that supply energy to the grid, not individual rooftop installations. Grid-scale solar energy now supplies more than 12 MW of power, out of about 90 MW total power generation for the state. https://www.ercot.com/ [ercot.com] Your accusations are not based on fact.
And as for wind power, yes, exactly. Give people a financial incentive, and they'll embrace it. And keep government out of the way.
Re: (Score:2)
> not individual rooftop installations.
I never said rooftop solar.
What you have is hundreds of companies who aren't Ercot rolling out large scale solar because there is a market for power that doesn't stop working when it gets a little cold out... like natural gas in Texas does because Ercot facilities refuse to winterize.
Residential solar is also booming, for what it's worth.
> Grid-scale solar energy now supplies more than 12 MW of power, out of about 90 MW total power generation for the state.
Units
Re: (Score:2)
My numbers (MW) came from here: https://www.ercot.com/ [ercot.com]
I don't think it's fair to criticize Texas for failing to winterize to an extent that the state hasn't seen in 125 years. California's grid suffers blackouts a whole lot more often than that.
You're right about the stupidity of Republicans trying to stop wind and solar. Thankfully, they're too late.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Refer back to the original article
But regulations doesn't over the fact that Texas has hugely, vastly more area on which wind farms can reasonably be built from a purely geographic point of view. And Texas also has a substantially lower population density meaning that there is also more middle-of-nowhere in Texas in which they can be built.
canceled in New Jersey.
I was specifically responding to the poster who claimed that teh reguhlashuns was the reason Texas has more wind power than California. Slashdot ha
Re: (Score:2)
I'd remind you that, as the original article states, the canceled projects were *offshore*. I don't think geography was an obstacle there.
Like New Jersey, California has plenty of land, and plenty of offshore locations, on which to build wind turbines. California's troubles are primarily due to the need for upgrades to the grid. https://calmatters.org/newslet... [calmatters.org] By contrast, Texas has already spent billions upgrading its grid. The Texas grid has its own problems, but all that open land wouldn't be able to s
Re: (Score:2)
I'd remind you that, as the original article states
Slashdot has a nested comment system which allows multiple independent conversations which drift around. I have already told you I was responding to a post which was about Texas versus California.
Like New Jersey, California has plenty of land, and plenty of offshore locations
Texas has probably a hundred times more suitable land than California and onshore is much cheaper than offshore.
Re: (Score:2)
That map only shows on-shore. If you look at this map you can see that California has even better resources off-shore: https://globalwindatlas.info/e... [globalwindatlas.info]
Much of it is in shallow areas too, not that we don't have good deep water turbines.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but on-shore is somewhat cheaper than offshore, and even with that, Texas has onshore as almost good for windspeeds as California's offshore. If you have a fixed amount of money to invest in wind power, you can most likely buy more capacity in Texas versus California, simply because of geography.
Texas is outrageously good for renewable energy geographically. It has a ton of on-shore space with excellent wind and insolation, and a reasonably low population density.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That and the Biden administration would stop promoting the overprinting of dollars which has destroyed these wind projects before they could get off the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um... they did (Score:2)
This notion that everything can be solved if we just do away with regulation needs to stop. Many, no most regulations exist in
Re: Um... they did (Score:2)
"Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?"
Right back atcha guy. Life isn't binary and somewhere between a libertarian free-for-all and special dispensation being required to take a piss, there's this thing called nuance that allows you to conclude that granting standing to sue against windmills for aesthetics or power lines because scary electromagnetic radiation or endangering the habitat of some bird that magically only lives in the abandoned railroad right of way where the line is supposed to be built is probably not a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
For this I can only recall the immortal words of Nelson Muntz - "ha ha".
Re: (Score:2)
We just bought a new Tesla (and aren't super thrilled with it TBH, but it'll manage). The sales guy was a complete idiot. I'm sitting in the back seat while he's telling my spouse how the benefit of a Tesla is no maintenance other than replacing a battery in 20 to 30 years, which is cheaper than a required transmission replacement.
Really? You say that when the MFD touch screen which is required hangs up (definitely didn't buy a Model X after that, went to the Model Y at least)? I
So it worked as expected again (Score:5, Interesting)
“We have a lot of leverage,” said Frank Coyne, treasurer of Protect Our Coast NJ, which gathered over 500,000 signatures on a petition opposing proposed wind farms. “The objective is to hold them up and make the cost so overwhelming that they’ll go home.”
Basically right out of the very same playbook of the people opposed to nuclear, pipelines, hydro dams, and other civil infrastructure. And it worked here too.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Hard to have sympathy that they get the same as they give. In fact I kind of enjoy it.
Re: (Score:2)
I can at least understand how people could object to on-shore wind near where they live, but there seems to be no real justification for allowing them to block offshore wind.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you have a bunch of multi-millionaires that bought VERY expensive beachfront property homes and they don't want their currently pristine ocean views marred by a bunch of wind farms out in the ocean.
And being that these people are quite wealthy, have a great deal of political pull and can get their way.
Re: (Score:2)
I can at least understand how people could object to on-shore wind near where they live, but there seems to be no real justification for allowing them to block offshore wind.
They are taking maximal advantage of all of the legal and due process rights available to them. If enough of these groups have success against enough projects one day they will be able to say, look, wind farms are too slow and too expensive, much like the coordinated effort has done to nuclear for generations. Turnabout is fair play. Makes me laugh.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about "fair play", it's about what we need.
As for nuclear, even without the legal issues it's incredibly expensive, that's the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hinkley Point C is being built on the site of an existing plant, so the legal issues were very quickly resolved at the start.
The cost is simply the cost of building and running it.
Re: (Score:2)
Hinkley Point C is being built on the site of an existing plant, so the legal issues were very quickly resolved at the start.
I don't know about that, but hopefully the waste of time and money is coming to an end. I would not be surprised if somebody tries again before it opens though. It's all some people know.
https://world-nuclear-news.org... [world-nuclear-news.org]
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/art... [thetimes.co.uk]
I'm not even from the UK. Maybe your news does not cover these things?
Re: (Score:3)
I recall some stats a while ago, a very sizable number of Teslas were ultimately coal powered.
In the past it's been said that it is better to get the power from a central source, even if coal, than to burn refined gasoline directly. I don't know if that's still true.
And over time we'll probably learn of a bunch of negative consequences. Progress is rarely purely removal of problems, more often exchange of one set of problems for another.
For sure. The automobile solved a serious problem around the turn of the 20th century, and now it's our turn to solve the problems created by that solution.
That's why its probably best to learn of the new problems from the early adopters over time, and not force the main market into EVs prematurely.
I wonder if any level of govt around that time presented any enticements for automobiles to help solve their horseshit problem. Roads, licensing/zoning for gas stations; infrastructur
Re: (Score:2)
It's better to centrally produce electricity, than having thousands of fossil fuel engines pumping out soot and other pollutants right where people breath it in. With central production you can do a lot more to capture it too.
The UK only has three coal plants left, and those won't be around for much longer. Then it will just be gas, and even that is on the decline.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a really stupid, ignorant point to make.
Woosh ....
The point of the comment was about the smugness of some EV owners. Acting as if they too are not consumers of fossil fuels.
Now silly little child go back and re-read the bit about how problems are rarely solved and more likely just exchanged for a different set of problems. And given all the unknowns regarding EVs the latter is the likely case. That we need to see how things go on the lifecycle timeline for these early adopters to get a more accurate picture of the costs and unintended conse
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I recall some stats a while ago, a very sizable number of Teslas were ultimately coal powered."
Holy steam punk Batman! An actual coal powered Tesla would be pretty darn cool. Move over you sad want-to-be's in your pickup trucks - we'll show you what "rolling coal" really means!
Elon should so build one.
Re: (Score:2)
My son has a non-Tesla EV, and I am not at all surprised what fuels are used to generate the electricity. It runs about 50% on nukes and 10% on wind, with the rest basically split between coal and gas. And using coal plants to produce electricity to charge the battery to run the motor is a more efficient
Re: (Score:2)
Primary issue (Score:5, Informative)
The biggest challenge for them was the service ships for erecting the turbines are booked out three years. That delay will lead to renegotiation of all contracts with significant inflation increases.
For the amount of wind turbines the US is proposing a couple Jones Act vessles would be a good idea.
Re: (Score:3)
And there we have some actual facts. Not the political insightless bullshit so many people are pushing in this thread. The problem is the unanticipated _success_ of wind farms.
esg falsification (Score:2)
Re: esg falsification (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And the name comes from the Danish physicists who described the connection between electricity and magnetism.
GOP & Tories (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Essentially, what this story tells us is that through (wilful?) mismanagement, at least 2 wind farm projects are failing in the USA & the UK. We already know that the GOP & Tory parties are beholden to the fossil fuel lobbies. The thing is, it appears that the Democrat & Labour parties don't seem to be offering any feasible alternatives. This is what creates the conditions for extremist, right-wing populism to grow.
While I see the same thing happening, what I can't wrap my head around is why, when the "left" offers failing or no solutions, people run screaming towards the "right" whose only "solutions" are "attack, make fun of, own, denigrate." How is that a platform that appeals to anyone? The whole Jenga tower of power looks like a wobbly mess to most of us trying to sort it out, rather than hurl epithets at one another. We know in our hearts that politicians serve the ultra-wealthy first and foremost, but god damn.
Save the Whales (Score:2)
NJ folks vote next week.
They really need to vote to Save the Whales, no matter which party they're registered to.
It's not the NIMBYs (this time) (Score:2)
Simply put, all existing specialist turbine installation ships that could do the work are already booked to jobs elsewhere.
It's the deficit, stupid (Score:2)
This is a great example of how running enormous budget deficits inhibits other goals. Financing deficits by printing money leads to inflation which makes all the environmental and infrastructure projects interest groups want too expensive.
It's almost as if life doesn't have solutions so much as tradeoffs. And it's like the crowding out effect economists warn of might be a real thing. Who knew?
This is not to say that I've missed the irony that environmental protection regulations are being used to kneecap en
Oh, gee, I wonder why (Score:2)
Just because TFG and the Trump Crime Family fought wind every possible way, and are still doing that, I wonder why it's costing more....
Makes perfect sense (Score:2)
No one's going to splash out on innvations if they are in a financial struggle. Times like these require tried-and-tested, efficient and low-cost solutions. I'm glad that someone is still able to see common sense and is not afraid of backtracking on committments if they are not economically viable anymore. We've got to focus on more critical areas of our lives first.
Re: (Score:2)
Environmentalism
The root cause of all the bullshit hearings and approvals any project must clear before proceeding. How does it feel now when Trump drags his feet?
Re:Unserious "environmentalists" (Score:5, Interesting)
When the greenies start pushing nuclear I'll know they're being serious.
Well some of the older greenies that were guilty more of optimism than politics actually are admitting opposing nuclear was a mistake. They now include nuclear in the "all of the above" carbon free sources.
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously? Slashdot is all-in on reducing groups to cartoonish caricatures. That sort of empty headed virtue signaling is the easiest way to get a (+5, informative) here.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I am adding color to the other person's statement.
I get modded down all the time for calling out the extremist virtue signaling "we're all good and perfect, you are pure stupid and evil" crowd.
Re: Get ready for blackouts (Score:2, Informative)
Wind? No, they donâ(TM)t replace anything, they shift demand from stable base supply like nuclear to less efficient gas turbine plants. Wind/solar is there to prop up their primary investors like Shell and Exxon and remove the incentive to go to true net-zero.
Re: Get ready for blackouts (Score:4, Informative)
Offshore wind has a capacity factor of 50%, and rising. It's rivalling nuclear in Europe now, which averages around 70%.
It's also very reliable and predictable. A fault affecting one turbine has only a small effect, it doesn't take a gigawatt or more off the grid with no warning. Wind is of course highly predictable, especially in the short term.
Offshore wind is quite consistent, never stops, and over any reasonably large area can provide base load.
The need for gas plants is being reduced all the time, and in the long term they will be replaced by storage. It's simply a matter of cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear plants individually have a a capacity factor of over 90%, multiple nuclear plants should near 99.999% if operated properly.
Offshore wind has a capacity factor of 50%? At the top end, perhaps. It actually ranges from 21% to 52% and averages 35% unless you completely remove the fact that wind is produced also when it is not needed (which is how Europe fudges these factors, they turn down base load and use peaker gas and then claim higher capacity factors than actually feasible).
Re: (Score:2)
No nuclear plant ever has a capacity factor of 99.999% because they need regular maintenance and refuelling. Five nines is 5.25 minutes a year, with the rest of the time spent at 100% output.
Europe has been averaging around 70% in recent years. There's always some excuse as to why recent years are exceptional, but those are the facts. Meanwhile wind continues to improve with newer turbines being taller and situated further out to sea, where the wind is even more consistent.
Re: (Score:2)
No nuclear plant ever has a capacity factor of 99.999% because they need regular maintenance and refuelling. Five nines is 5.25 minutes a year, with the rest of the time spent at 100% output.
No one said a single nuclear plant has a capacity factor of 99.999%. What was stated is that if you have multiple nuclear plants with a capacity factor of 90%, if combined and operated properly you could approach a capacity of 99.999%.
Re: (Score:2)
Europe has been averaging around 70% in recent years.
China manages over 90%, but their fleet is much newer. Something you won't have, because they are smarter.
Re: (Score:2)
China just doesn't care about the cost.
Re: (Score:2)
China just doesn't care about the cost.
Cheapest is not always best. Chinese know this but will happily sell you cheap too if that is your goal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Good job it's not unmonitored or unprotected then.
Fact is we already have large numbers of critical infrastructure items offshore. From oil and gas production to undersea cables for power and data.
Re: (Score:2)
The same thing that stops a "bad guy" from boating up to an offshore oil platform and fucking up not only the rig but also decimating tens of thousands of square miles of ocean and the lives of the people who depend on it:
Nothing.
Well, nothing except for the logistical complexity and difficulty of doing serious damage relative to the possible political/economic gains from success. Ramming a boat into a wind turbine that's already built to withstand boat impacts - and much worse - probably isn't the best ban
Re: (Score:2)
What stops a bad guy boating up to any offshore infrastructure and fucking up a bunch of expensive equipment?
Other than the cameras, coast guard, navy, the fact that you need some serious explosives to do any real damage, and that most nations are interested in defending their infrastructure?
And even if they did do it, they take out a turbine and then get arrested or cause an international incident. Well done, you took ~10MW off the grid, and the only people who care are the accountants. It's even less viab
Re: Get ready for blackouts (Score:4)
What stops a "bad guy" of any stripe from boating up to an off shore wind farm and fucking up a bunch of expensive infrastructure.
1. There are not very may "bad guys", and they are not on the whole very competent.
2. Offshore wind turbines are massive and incredibly robust structures since they are built to last survive decades against ocean storms. They are astoundingly strong and require an immense effort to break.
3. You need a helicopter to get up to the generator housing.
4. They are continuously monitored so people would notice if they started dropping offline at a higher than normal rate.
5. Despite the immense size and strength, offshore farms need hundreds of them, so you would have to "fuck up" a huge lot of them to have any substantial impact.
For some "bad guy", they'd have to be an experienced enough sailor or (helicopter pilot) to get out to one of these in the open ocean and set up for demolition, or some other method of sabotage (with enough experience to actually effectively do that) and then spend a considerable amount of time and money on each turbine, and somehow do more than a few without anyone magically noticing or killing themselves or a key team member because open ocean engineering is a notoriously dangerous occupation.
So the answer is "lots of things".
So armed patrol boats are in the area warding off and confronting any who approach?
Guns! The solution to everything! Americaaa fuck yeah!
Re: (Score:2)
So all those windmills each has their own transmission cable back to shore?
So a pair of divers with explosives couldn't take out a huge chunk of power with one bomb because they don't?
That could never happen. Like Nordstream or the translation internet cables that have been cut multiple times around the world.
Okey dokey. Sounds good to me.
Re: (Score:3)
But that's not the problem. The problem is that you STILL need the nuclear or gas or coal or mice running on treadmills to meet demand when wind is inadequate. All that the windmills do is lower emissions, but at additional, not instead of, capital costs. For many, lowering emissions is necessary at any cost, but apparently not everyone agrees.
Re:Offshore wind is a greenwasher's paradise. (Score:4, Insightful)
We also need other low or no CO2 sources of energy. For example, in many parts of the world, solar water heating is incredibly cheap, low-tech, & easy & quick to install. It's far more efficient to have the sun heat your water on your roof than to heat it with any kind of electricity. This also takes a huge load off of the electricity grid as heating water is one of the more energy-intensive things households do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Batteries.... and what happens over time as those batteries erode away storing less and less power?
Just dump a billion pounds of batteries "somewhere" and install new ones?
Batteries are fucking expensive. In my case the batteries were about 35% of the total cost of my home solar. And what did I get? A great system as long as I turn off the AC and other high drain devices. I negotiated down to below the average cost of solar in my area, btw, so it just is what it is. In order to run my house on pure sol
Re: (Score:2)
How do you ever do anything at all, knowing that you'll have to do more things later instead of living in a state of heavenly bliss forever?
Re: (Score:2)
Batteries.... and what happens over time as those batteries erode away storing less and less power?
Good point. No one except you knows anything about infrastructure and no one has ever observed battery ageing before. It's a completely unknown problem you have brought to the world, and now we know it we should abandon all efforts.
In other words, stop JAQing off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where I live the most common way to heat water (as well as home heat, cooking, etc) is natural gas.
Cheap and efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Offshore wind is a greenwasher's paradise. (Score:5, Insightful)
Spending money on something which is as you say "capital-intensive" is the exact opposite of greenwashing. Greenwashing is spending little while pretending you're doing something (e.g. tacking on a "plant a tree" fee to offset an airline ticket)
This is starting to be a trend. It's like in the past year a whole new generation of people like you popped up out of no where and don't seem to have a clue what that word means or how to use it in a sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's like in the past year a whole new generation of people like you popped up out of no where and don't seem to have a clue what that word means or how to use it in a sentence.
Inconceivable!