First Large Offshore US Wind Farm Delivers Power To Local Grid (npr.org) 99
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: America's first commercial-scale offshore wind farm is officially open, a long-awaited moment that helps pave the way for a succession of large wind farms. Danish wind energy developer Orsted and the utility Eversource built a 12-turbine wind farm called South Fork Wind 35 miles (56 kilometers) east of Montauk Point, New York. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul went to Long Island Thursday to announce that the turbines are delivering clean power to the local electric grid, flipping a massive light switch to "turn on the future." Interior Secretary Deb Haaland was also on hand.
Achieving commercial scale is a turning point for the industry, but what's next? Experts say the nation needs a major buildout of this type of clean electricity to address climate change. Offshore wind is central to both national and state plans to transition to a carbon-free electricity system. The Biden administration has approved six commercial-scale offshore wind energy projects, and auctioned lease areas for offshore wind for the first time off the Pacific and Gulf of Mexico coasts. New York picked two more projects last month to power more than 1 million homes. This is just the beginning, Hochul said. She said the completion of South Fork shows that New York will aggressively pursue climate change solutions to save future generations from a world that otherwise could be dangerous. South Fork can generate 132 megawatts of offshore wind energy to power more than 70,000 homes.
"It's great to be first, we want to make sure we're not the last. That's why we're showing other states how it can be done, why we're moving forward, on to other projects," Hochul told The Associated Press in an exclusive interview before the announcement. "This is the date and the time that people will look back in the history of our nation and say, 'This is when it changed,'" Hochul added. South Fork will generate more than four times the power of a five-turbine pilot project developed earlier off the coast of Rhode Island, and unlike that subsidized test project, was developed after Orsted and Eversource were chosen in a competitive bidding process to supply power to Long Island. Orsted CEO Mads Nipper called the opening a major milestone that proves large offshore wind farms can be built, both in the United States and in other countries with little or no offshore wind energy currently.
Another large U.S. offshore wind farm began producing energy in January, with plans to eventually power 62 turbines, enough to generate electricity for 400,000 homes.
Achieving commercial scale is a turning point for the industry, but what's next? Experts say the nation needs a major buildout of this type of clean electricity to address climate change. Offshore wind is central to both national and state plans to transition to a carbon-free electricity system. The Biden administration has approved six commercial-scale offshore wind energy projects, and auctioned lease areas for offshore wind for the first time off the Pacific and Gulf of Mexico coasts. New York picked two more projects last month to power more than 1 million homes. This is just the beginning, Hochul said. She said the completion of South Fork shows that New York will aggressively pursue climate change solutions to save future generations from a world that otherwise could be dangerous. South Fork can generate 132 megawatts of offshore wind energy to power more than 70,000 homes.
"It's great to be first, we want to make sure we're not the last. That's why we're showing other states how it can be done, why we're moving forward, on to other projects," Hochul told The Associated Press in an exclusive interview before the announcement. "This is the date and the time that people will look back in the history of our nation and say, 'This is when it changed,'" Hochul added. South Fork will generate more than four times the power of a five-turbine pilot project developed earlier off the coast of Rhode Island, and unlike that subsidized test project, was developed after Orsted and Eversource were chosen in a competitive bidding process to supply power to Long Island. Orsted CEO Mads Nipper called the opening a major milestone that proves large offshore wind farms can be built, both in the United States and in other countries with little or no offshore wind energy currently.
Another large U.S. offshore wind farm began producing energy in January, with plans to eventually power 62 turbines, enough to generate electricity for 400,000 homes.
Yay (Score:1, Troll)
How long will it take the windfarm to produce as much energy as it took to build and install the windfarm?
Re:Yay (Score:5, Interesting)
By that argument, why build any power stations of any type? They all cost large amounts to build. Lets not have any cars while we're at it.
On-shore are far cheaper to maintain though. And it's not like there is a shortage of open windy spaces on land. What's more, farm land can even co-exist with them. A win-win when it also pays the farmer.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it pays the farmer, but it gets all their neighbors offside (initially - although this resistance starts to diminish over time [lbl.gov]).
Re:Yay (Score:5, Interesting)
Offshore wind is a win-win for fishermen.
The platforms provide shelter for young fish, and more of them survive.
The platforms also draw in fish that prefer reefs to open water.
Fish harvests go up.
Re:Yay (Score:4, Informative)
False. While the windfarms are a net benefit for fishlife (creating similar conditions to an artificial reef), they are an exclusion zone for fisheries. There is no net benefit for fisheries and large harvests do not go up. The studies done on this (Belgium and Denmark have the most comprehensive) show that there's only a minor increase in catch rates for small fishing boats able to operate close to windfarms, but that is not a win for "fisherman". It's a win for a couple of people in boats.
To quote directly the EU case study on the effect of windfarms on fisheries: "Results suggest no negative effect for the fishing sector. The beam trawl fleet adapted to the offshore windfarm area and relocated their activities." Emphasis not mine, it was bolded in the study report.
That said, we overfish as it is, so restricting large commercial fishing isn't necessarily a bad thing. But don't pretend windfarms are good for fish harvests. They are good for fish (an almost mutually exclusive statement).
Re: (Score:2)
That's probably because there isn't much benefit within the wind farm. It's not like the tower foundations are built with nocks and crannies for small fish to hide in.
If there was a decent benefit to fish life then it surely would spill over into the wider area.
Re: (Score:2)
While the windfarms are a net benefit for fishlife (creating similar conditions to an artificial reef), they are an exclusion zone for fisheries. There is no net benefit for fisheries and large harvests do not go up. The studies done on this (Belgium and Denmark have the most comprehensive) show that there's only a minor increase in catch rates for small fishing boats able to operate close to windfarms, but that is not a win for "fisherman". It's a win for a couple of people in boats.
Exclusion zones increase the total mass of harvestable fish. It is a win for "humanity". Perhaps it is not a big win for the largest operators, but guess what? Enabling more small-scale fishermen creates more jobs, because the biggest operators have the greatest labor efficiency.
Re: (Score:2)
Enabling more small-scale fishermen creates more jobs,
You're not enabling anything. Small scale fishermen are being driven out by volume of high commercial operations. Having more fish suitable for smaller fishing vessels does not mean you'll get more jobs if it remains uneconomical to compete with larger ones (and by that same report larger fisheries are unaffected as moving their operation away from the windfarm didn't negatively affect their business).
Re: (Score:2)
False. While the windfarms are a net benefit for fishlife (creating similar conditions to an artificial reef), they are an exclusion zone for fisheries.
You must be a Modern Day American Capitalist.
Why would you fish where juvenile fish are growing? Do you not understand how life works? If you want maximum fish, you wait until they are old enough to breed and then harvest them AFTER they have bred. Seems obvious right?
To quote directly the EU case study on the effect of windfarms on fisheries: "Results suggest no negative effect for the fishing sector. The beam trawl fleet adapted to the offshore windfarm area and relocated their activities." Emphasis not mine, it was bolded in the study report.
Since you failed to provide a link, I am unable to infer context; however, as stated, the fishing fleets altered their behaviors and saw no increases. Well duh? It will take years for the effects of the safe areas to grow overall sea life.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you're telling me that it never pays for itself by generating more energy than it took to build and install, then it was a complete waste of time. It would only make sense if renewable powered mining equipment was used to mine the ores, renewalble powered factories were used to manufacture it, renewable powered vehicles were used to deliver and install it, and renewable powered vehicles were used to connect it to the grid.
If these conditions were not met, and there is only a slim chance that they might
Re: Yay (Score:4, Insightful)
It would only make sense if renewable powered mining equipment was used to mine the ores, renewalble powered factories were used to manufacture it, renewable powered vehicles were used to deliver and install it, and renewable powered vehicles were used to connect it to the grid.
That makes absolutely no sense. How does burning more coal than was used to produce a coal-fire generator make any sense? It's almost like you should be talking about efficiency ... or what you get out from what is put in, or any two coal plants would be the same.
Construction costs being equal (as-if, good luck building a carbon fiber power station), the wind farm has markedly better air and water quality. That's a net gain, unless you can explain how constructing wind turbines is somehow worse than what, another turbine?
Net environmental gain, net power gain, what was your problem?
Re: (Score:2)
You would build power stations of other types because (unlike wind, at least according to the poster) the energy they generate over their lifespan is greater than the energy which you expend to build them.
The point is not about CO2. The point is about whether an economy based entirely on wind and solar and excluding coal, gas and oil, is viable. The present concept of the climate activists appears to be the electric society. Transport will be electrified, all vehicles will be EVs, homes will be heated by
Re:Yay (Score:4, Interesting)
Fact-check: Do wind turbines cost more to build than the energy they produce? [statesman.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
One 2019 study from engineers at the University of Texas at Arlington factored in the wind speeds from a working wind farm in Texas with 200 turbines. It examined in detail the energy it took to move the turbine components from where they were made in Spain to the Lone Star Wind Farm near Abilene. It also measured the energy it took to get raw materials to the factories in Spain where manufacturing took place. The wind at the Lone Star Wind Farm varies and the researchers used that data to find the actual average wind speed through the year.
They calculated a turbine that lasts 20 years will reach a full energy payback in less than six years.
Please post some counterfactuals since this is admittedly only 2 articles so there could be more evidence for your case.
Re:Yay (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, but the idea that they cost more energy to build than the produce is non sensible. If that were true, they could never be cost competitive with, for example, coal, gas or nuclear. But they are; even with the increase in cost of capital, they have are cheaper than gas. The question of cost competitiveness with gas is actually a much better question, as is the question of competitiveness with other renewables.
The idea that the wind turbines use more energy in installation than they produce has been going around for a long time; it's never been true. The best source that I know for it is an often quoted paragraph which does say this but is actually in paper about location of wind farms, and how they work better if you put them in windy places.
Re: (Score:2)
Also the implication from that line of argumentation when you keep following the thread is "private businesses have no ability or incentive to gauge lifetime costs and liabilities and cannot be relied on to make rational economic decisions" which basically supports wresting the entire market from private companies. It's actually a pretty hard socialist way to look at it.
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't describe that as socialist. Companies are entirely capable of doing things which are totally irrational, if they are incentivized enough to do so; for example, continuing to drill for oil when we know it is capable of causing great harm to our environment.
But, yes, the line of argument is a strawman, combined with the Gish gallop. Start of with something nonsensical, then draw as many conclusions from this false premise, as fast as you can, showing how absurd the opposite point of view is, hoping
Re: (Score:3)
continuing to drill for oil when we know it is capable of causing great harm to our environment.
That's not irrational though, it's actually quite rational. No carbon tax means the companies are not responsible for the negative externalities of that action therefore they have no incentive to change behavior. If they continued doing it with the presence of a carbon tax to where they would lose money on the operation, that would be irrational.
This is why so many economists supports such a tax and have since like the 1970's
https://www.econstatement.org/ [econstatement.org]
Re:Yay (Score:4, Informative)
And it's not like there is a shortage of open windy spaces on land.
It's not just about open windy spaces. It's about:
- Spaces you're allowed to build. (Offshore wind is actually an easier legal field to navigate).
- Spaces with *consistent* wind. (Offshore wind is far more consistent than onshore wind due to lack of heating/cooling effects from land mass).
- Spaces with *strong* wind. (Offshore wind is stronger than onshore wind).
What's more, farm land can even co-exist with them.
Not quite. This may be true for small farmers (same as for small fishers, see my reply to ShanghaiBill's comment below), but it's not a net win for large farmers. Wind farms in fields require access, require carving out a section which present an obstacle to large scale harvest. It eliminates the use of the field during construction (which can take a year). It requires farmers grant 3rd party access and right of way for power lines.
Most farmers are against having a wind turbine on their land for a reason, it's not the win-win you think it is.
Citation needed (Score:3)
This study [sciencedirect.com] suggests otherwise:
Wind turbines are predominantly sited on farmland in the US Midwest. In Midwestern communities, farming is both a common profession and a significant source of income and tax revenue, as well as a contributor to both individual and community identity. Farmers often view wind energy development favorably as wind-turbine leases can be used to diversify farmers’ portfolios, provide flood and drought-proof income, and improve the chances of succession. Farmers have also been shown to view wind farm development as an economic development opportunity for the greater community.
Most wind farms are on farmland, and the income of tens of thousands of dollars [usatoday.com] annually for farmers (and even some for their neighbours) can be a huge help in difficult years. Even this study [pnas.org] on opposition to wind farms finds that just 17% of proposals face any opposition, so at least 83% of farmers are accepting or welcoming them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Why don’t you do the math and tell us?
Re: (Score:1)
Why don’t you do the math and tell us?
No need.
Greedy profit-seeking capitalists have already done the math.
If it wasn't a clear net positive, they wouldn't be building them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Greedy profit-seeking capitalists have already done the math.
If it wasn't a clear net positive, they wouldn't be building them.
They factor in the subsidies they receive for building wind farms. Solar and wind farms get ten times more subsidies than nuclear, so it makes sense for profit-seeking capitalists to focus on them.
Interestingly, these subsidies only cover the initial setup of wind farms, not maintenance. That's why when turbines break down, profit-seeking capitalists often don't bother fixing them because it's not profitable.
It's still good to build solar/wind farms, they are still a low-emitting CO2 energy source, although
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How can you say that renewables get 10x the subsidies of nuclear, when nuclear subsidies are incalculable?
Free insurance means that the government is on the hook for infinite money, as the Japanese discovered. Their legal system doesn't allow people to get much in the way of compensation, but even so with the clean-up the cost is looking to be in excess of half a trillion USD. And that's before you count the indirect economic damage due to the disaster, e.g. lost seafood sales.
There is no real limit to the
Re: (Score:2)
If the triple melt-down had been in a litigious country like the US, the government would have had to pass a law to fend off all the lawsuits and stop itself going bankrupt.
We already have that law. You have to petition to sue our federal government.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why when turbines break down, profit-seeking capitalists often don't bother fixing them because it's not profitable.
That's just flat out wrong. The repair costs of a typical wind generator is minor compared to the construction cost even with subsidies taken into account. The only reason you would not repair a wind turbine is if it were already near end of life (not an out of the ordinary scenario given we have wind farms that have been in operation for 30+ years already). It absolutely makes financial sense to repair any non-end-of-life wind turbine that hasn't suffered catastrophic damage (blade shedding event).
Re: (Score:2)
The repair costs of a typical wind generator is minor compared to the construction cost even with subsidies taken into account. [...] It absolutely makes financial sense to repair any non-end-of-life wind turbine
No, it makes no financial sense. Not when with the same investment, you can build a new wind farm using subsidies, and sell it.
I agree that it should make sense if subsidies were handed out differently. That is just not the case today, and greedy profit-seeking capitalists, as you call them, understand that.
This is also why when subsidies run out, we see abandonned projects, or even operators willing to pay fines to get out of future projects.
Re: Yay (Score:1)
This isn't the first, so you could easily look at any of the other many installations around the world and come up with some reasonable guesses.
Re:Yay (Score:4, Interesting)
Generally you'd look at a life cycle assessment rather than the initial energy or carbon foot print cost. This makes it more practical to compare power sources with different life spans. That way you can compare a coal plant, to a nuclear power plant, to a solar panel.
An anti wind turbine website claims building a hypothetical 1MW wind turbine generates 241.85 tons of CO2 [stopthesethings.com]. While a natural gas power plant would produce 450 kg of CO2 per MWh in operation. So yes, run it for 537 hours (~22 days) and you break even on the CO2 for building the wind turbine (assumes building a natural gas plant takes zero CO2). [wikipedia.org]
All that steel and concrete to build a wind turbine isn't the long pole here. Or to put an idiom to it: you cannot see the forest for the trees.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, clearly it would have been preferable to build a mix of coal and nuclear in central Manhattan.
"Gases are spewing into the atmosphere." (Score:4, Funny)
--- former President and campaign hopeful, defendant Donald J Trump, (P01135809)
Re: (Score:2)
In addition to that, Asshole is promising to drill, baby, drill. Easy for him to say, he'll be gone in 10 years. Our kids and grandkids however would have to live with the result.
Re: (Score:2)
There is always some idiot asshole that desperately needs to crap on anything.
Re: (Score:2)
It will depend, of course, but a little less than a year to become carbon neutral -- not exactly the same thing as energy in/energy out but pretty close and probably more important.
Re: (Score:2)
It's great to be first (Score:1)
Seriously?
And all Europeans yawn (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
That's nice. But since that's the game you're playing - meanwhile the US had 70,800 as of January 2022.
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-... [usgs.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And anybody that can read knows this is about _offshore_ wind turbines, not on-shore. Functional illiteracy in the US seems to be raising.
Re: (Score:2)
And anybody that can read knows this is about _offshore_ wind turbines, not on-shore. Functional illiteracy in the US seems to be raising.
What is offshore wind turbines? The parent was replying to the OP, the OP quoted the total number of wind turbines in the UK, not the offshore number. The offshore number stands at ~2600.
Functional illiteracy in the US seems to be raising.
What I like most about you gweihir is that you're so quick to insult others while at the same time posting something absolutely moronic.
Re: (Score:2)
You apparently did not read the story. How pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
Came to say the same thing. It's 2024 and they only just installed the first little one?
Something has gone badly wrong here.
Re: (Score:2)
how many homes was that? (Score:5, Insightful)
"...enough to generate electricity for 400,000 homes...."
This is the usual misleading quantification. The farm itself doesn't do this. Not because it does not generate enough electricity, but because what it generates is not the product the homes need. It is not putting out the same product as a coal or gas power station because its supply is unpredictably intermittent, whereas theirs is stable and consistent and dispatchable.
The homes require 24 x 7 power at utility standards of stability. What the wind farm generates is a supply which varies with the weather. The UK in a fit of naive pride as it runs at the Net Zero cliff supplies the most exhaustive sets of statistics on the performance of its wind generating plant. You can get graphical versions here:
www.gridwatch.co.uk
On an instant basis, here:
https://energynumbers.info/gbg... [energynumbers.info]
You can also download detailed csv files with all the data anyone would want. What does it show? Wild fluctuations of supply. 28GW of faceplate sometimes delivers less than 0.5GW, sometimes 21GW. There are prolonged calms of a week or more two or three times a year (caused by blocking highs) and then you have supply consistently below 5GW for a week or ten days. Days with 0.5GW or less occur much more frequently, dozens of times a year.
Jon Butterworth, CEO of National Gas in the UK, has said âoeIf we hadnâ(TM)t had gas in 2022, there were 260 days when we would have had rolling blackouts, and for 26 of those days we would have had a full blackout."
This is not a supply which can power homes, or indeed anything else much. Yes, you could use it to pump water into a pumped reservoir system. Or to heat a thermal store. Or maybe to generate hydrogen by electrolysis. But what you can't use it for is to power homes, offices, industry.
So gas plants with very short startup lead times are used to cover when the wind is not blowing. This is why the UK has just announced a gas power station building program. Its the only way to keep the lights on.
But quick start gas is not the same as CCGT, combined cycle. CCGT recovers heat from the exhaust, and so works at a high level of efficiency, around 60%. Rapid start plants are much less efficient.
The paradoxical effect is that the higher the percentage of wind in your system, the more you will use the peaker plants, and the less efficient your gas use will be.
Its completely misleading to describe this situation by claiming that a given wind installation sill supply the needs of x thousand homes. It simply will not. It may have other beneficial effects and uses, it may contribute to powering lots of things, but one thing it will not do is power x thousand homes or generate enough power for x thousand homes.
You must be (Score:2)
new to Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It is not putting out the same product as a coal or gas power station because its supply is unpredictably intermittent, whereas theirs is stable and consistent and dispatchable.
This is why my electricity meter is configured to reject wind electrons and only let carbon electrons through. Because we don't have a grid that manages a multitude of intermittent sources. It's also why no one ever has solar power. It's just not something people can use. /s
Re: (Score:2)
Strawman
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
People are in denial about the implications of intermittency. An intermittent supply is not the same product as a dispatchable supply. You cannot supply your local supermarket with a ton of lettuce on August 1 and claim to have met its annual needs for lettuce. A delivery of a ton on August 1 is not the same product as a ton delivered in weekly installments year round, when people actually want to buy it. Perishable goods, notice?
To use the intermittent supply you have to make it dispatchable at the po
Re: (Score:2)
Re:how many homes was that? (Score:4, Interesting)
Same thing here. The green line is wind plus solar. Wind installed capacity is 2800 MW, solar is 138 MW so you can basically ignore it for this discussion.
https://transmission.bpa.gov/b... [bpa.gov]
If you are interested solar output drops to 4 to 7% of rating on overcast days in the winter. And in this are overcast is the normal winter condition.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a myth [skepticalscience.com].
Yes, or to charge a Powerwall or an electric car with V2G/V2H.
That's already obsolete. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Meanwhile, in parts of Europe electricity has been almost free* in recent weeks due to renewables, while France is stuck paying out le derriÃre because it has to buy the fixed energy output of its inflexible generation no matter what. Can't even export it because renewables are cheaper so everyone goes to them first.
And yes, the lights stay on.
* In Spain it has dropped below 2 Euro/MWh, which is literally too small to meter since many pricing systems can only go as low a 1 cent/kWh, i.e. 5x this price.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you a fossil fuel shill? Because this comment really reads like that, and I'm surprised it's been moderated so highly.
By itself, yes, wind power isn't a great source of electricity. Neither is solar. Both are by their nature unreliable and incapable of providing a sustained supply. That does not make them useless. Instead this is why they should form part of a mix of renewables contributing to an electricity grid.
A grid should have ways of storing excess generation to put that power back into the g
How did they solve the cancer problem (Score:2)
Windmills are know to cause cancer. How did they fix that? I guess maybe being at sea protects humans from the cancer noise?
Re: (Score:2)
Simple: Tell the nil wits that believe such crap that it really is the G5 towers that cause cancer, not the windfarms! Oh, and these are_offshore_. You may want to look up what that means.
Re: (Score:2)
They've just gotta make it clear to people that they're not allowed to cut the turbines in to little pieces and eat them.
Re: (Score:3)
Windmills are know to cause cancer. How did they fix that? I guess maybe being at sea protects humans from the cancer noise?
You fix it by changing the pitch on the blades so they spin the other way, then they cure cancer. I don't know why they don't set them to cure cancer in the first place, it's probably the deep state.
Build one on the Potomac (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No. The impact is far too small.
Re: Climate models seen any impact of wind power? (Score:1)
Well... Is the wind is being blown... Or sucked? If it's being sucked... Being 'downwind' would steal the energy of be the upwind turbine.... :-)
Better late than never (Score:2)
Only the US can celebrate being something like 25 years late to the game.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be context-challenged.
Re: (Score:2)
New York would be better off (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, no one is better off running an old outdated 50 year old end of life nuclear facility. New York would have been better off having built a new nuclear plant 20 years ago and having a modern one running, but they didn't. Nuclear has an excellent safety record precisely because people do realise that the term "end of life" is a real thing that applies to reactors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they would be you evil fucktard.
Congrats. Your argument amounts to not reading my post, calling me names, and saying "nuh uh". This is why no one takes you seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
On Land -- Not News (Score:2)
The U.S. has over 200 land-based wind farms rated at over 67,000 megawatts. California has over 3,900 MW, including the Alta Wind Energy Center (also known as Mojave Wind Farm) commissioned in 2010 and rated at 1548 MW, and the Tehachapi Pass Wind Farm completed in 2016 and rated at 710 MW. Texas has wind farms rated at over 18,200 MW including the Los Vientos Wind Farm commissioned in 2016 and rated at 912 MW.
And all for just the cost of 69 whales dead (Score:2)
People keep saying that offshore wind farms killing whales has been debunked... but there are an AWFUL LOT of dead whales [themainewire.com] turning up after these wind farms were built for there to be no issue at all.
And mind you, that was 69 in just a year... and just the dead ones found by humans.