Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

A Giant Wind Turbine, but Not for Virginia

—

by

Dick Hall-Sizemore
in ,

by Dick Hall-Sizemore

The issue of wind energy is pretty much out of my field of knowledge, much less expertise. I follow the discussion on this blog with a lot of interest.

In this vein, I found a story in today’s New York Times most interesting. It is about a giant turbine that GE is developing that is much bigger and more powerful than what is now available and is apparently shaking up the industry. That is interesting enough, but what really struck me was this passage about the advantages of the new machine:

“These qualities create a powerful incentive for developers to go for the largest machine available to aid their efforts to win the auctions for offshore power supply deals that many countries have adopted. These auctions vary in format, but developers compete to provide power over a number of years for the lowest price.”

That just underscores the point that has been frequently made on this blog: Virginia has made a huge mistake in granting Dominion Energy a monopoly in building offshore wind power.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

55 responses to “A Giant Wind Turbine, but Not for Virginia”

  1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    The first Giant… like the Miracle on Ice, the Miracle in the Wind pitted the amateurs against the pros… with the same outcome.

    http://www.wind-works.org/cms/index.php?id=85&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=5885&cHash=79a8e65b27f779bfbc18013471bf070a

  2. wpeabody.fcta Avatar
    wpeabody.fcta

    if it’s bigger do you need a bigger boat to install/repair it. The $200,000 a day boat might not float.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      People are the same size.

  3. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    I saw the article also. Interesting… I’ve always viewed large turbines in the same way I view a large bridge or skyscrapers, or dams or other very large infrastruture… nothing inherently “ugly” about any of them and actually many are considered both scenic and functional in their own right.

  4. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/sites/default/files/2020-12/Haliade-X%20at%20a%20glance_12.18.2020.jpg

    looks like they need twin cranes to get the top part done.

  5. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    You’ll still need a boring fossil fuel gas plant or a nuke if you want 24/7 power….

    UK is about five years ahead of us in this insanity. Too bad nobody is willing to learn anything:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/11/29/coal-outperforms-wind-power-during-uk-wind-week/

    1. Rowinguy Avatar
      Rowinguy

      We do have plenty of them in VA and they will continue to operate for 30 years unless the great poobahs in the General Assembly dictate otherwise. Perhaps by then, we will have worked out economic battery storage to accommodate the intermittancy of the wind and solar units.

  6. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
    Reed Fawell 3rd

    Yes, these monster wind towers have been in works and talked about for years, even at UVA.

  7. cjbova Avatar
    cjbova

    So Ørsted is constructing two 6-megawatt turbines for Dominion and plans to buy 90 of the new 13-megawatt machines for the Ocean Wind project off Atlantic City. Anyone see any commentary about if or how it will affect Dominion?

    1. Rowinguy Avatar
      Rowinguy

      Orestad is also going to assist in the big Dominion build out. We could see some of these big GE units in that mix.

      What we are not going to see is these things being built in Hampton Roads,

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      The point I was trying to make, however awkwardly, is not that Virginia will not be seeing these big turbines, but that Virginia will not be participating in “auctions for offshore power supply deals…[in which] developers compete to provide power over a number of years for the lowest price.”

  8. TBill Avatar
    TBill

    This article is a little like the almost daily articles about revolutionary new battery technology that is going to shake up the electric vehicle industry. I guess unless you have been involved involved in developing new technology, it is hard to imagine how difficult it is to successfully scale-up ideas like this. The tips of the turbine blades will be spinning at hundreds of miles per hour, and will have to stand up to hurricane force winds and ice and snow and salt water, and not just for one day but 24/7 for many years, without any degradation of performance, or we are screwed.

    A decade ago Congress mandated cellulosic ethanol for automobile renewable fuel mandates. Never happened, pie in the sky. Apparently Congress allowed corn ethanol as a substitute, so that’s what we do now, grow corn up to the elephant’s ears.

    Americans are huge believers that new technology is going to save the day, to the fault we want to error on the side of going that new way even if it is wrong-headed. So this type of article is an occupational hazard for Americans, that we tend to dream about. Got some snake oil? Sold a lot here in the olden days.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      I dunno. I’m a skeptic of the battery technology myself but on the other hand, I drive a car that the government mandated to have air pollution equipment on, it pollutes much less that prior cars AND gets better gas mileage. I have a much higher efficiency heat pump, low-flow toilet, LED lights, much more efficient fridge and dishwasher, an on-demand water heater, a smart thermostat, triple-pane windows, etc, etc… you get the picture.

      Seems like most of the govt mandates on pollution and energy efficiency have worked and can’t really think of any real boners.

      And there’s more in the latest stimulus bill passed bipartisan:
      excerpts:

      The new economic stimulus proposal that has been approved by Congress includes roughly $35.2 billion for energy initiatives, according to summary documents seen by TechCrunch.

      “This is probably the biggest energy bill we’ve seen in a decade,” said policy analyst Dr. Leah Stokes, an Assistant Professor at the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

      The biggest winners are photovoltaics, new transportation technologies and energy-efficiency technologies.

      There’s $1.5 billion for new solar technologies including modules, concentrating solar technology, new photovoltaic technologies and initiatives to expand solar manufacturing and recycling technologies. And $2.6 billion set aside for transportation technologies.

      Energy-grid technologies get a $3.44 billion boost through $1.08 billion in support for short-term, long-term, seasonal and transportation energy storage technologies and $2.36 billion for smart utility and energy distribution technologies.

      Another $625 million is dedicated to new research, development and commercialization for both onshore and offshore wind technologies. there’s $160 million earmarked for hydropower generator upgrades,

      By making these critical investments now, the Energy Act of 2020 will help “reduce our nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, bring good-paying jobs back to the United States, and allow us to export these technologies to growing markets abroad for years to come,” the summary report reads.

      These include carbon capture utilization and storage technologies that are getting a $6.2 billion boost for roll out at industrial and energy sites. Congress is also approving a $447 million research and development program for large-scale commercial carbon dioxide removal projects — with a $100 million carve out grant for direct air capture competition at facilities that capture at least 50,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually.

      https://techcrunch.com/2020/12/21/new-stimulus-bill-includes-35-2-billion-for-new-energy-initiatives/#:~:text=The%20new%20economic%20stimulus%20proposal,summary%20documents%20seen%20by%20TechCrunch.

    2. TBill Avatar
      TBill

      above meant to say corn is as high as a elephants eye, pls excuse me Mr. Hammerstein.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Takes the African or Indian out of the issue.

  9. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    When the cost of offshore wind power reaches the point where it is economically competitive with solar power — accounting for life-cycle costs and backup — then I’m fine with it. I just want electric power that won’t run up my electric bills and I can count on to perform through extreme weather events.

    Oh, yeah… and if the technology is new and experimental, I don’t want the ratepayers to absorb the risk of it working as advertised.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Of the 3 – solar, on-shore, and off-shore, off-shore would have more reliable 24/7 generation and truth be known, it IS “new technology” of which we really don’t know how well it will perform unless we do a pilot of sorts.

      Not only how much the wind blows for how long but how harsh weather affects the turbines.

      In terms of longevity in a harsh environment. We build ships, military and civilian that last decades, we build oil/gas platforms and we build bridges and tunnels that last , we can figure it out for turbines also.

      I’m amazed how many cite “questions” about turbine blades, as a reason to worry – we build nukes also that have questions and yet many “skeptics” seem to LIKE nukes! It’s llike “turbines are risky but Nukes are not”!

      😉

      I’d take a turbine in the Chesapeak Bay any day over a Nuke but I’ll take nukes also that don’t use 60-year-old designs (still NOT in the Bay)..

  10. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Watts Up With That is a climate change denial blog.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Uh yeah, but then, so’s Steve. Yes, I meant blog.

      1. Steve Haner Avatar
        Steve Haner

        There is more proof that Trump won the election than there is that our use of fossil fuels is going to cause any “climate catastrophe”. 🙂

        I read and weigh information on both sides. Idiots simply read what reinforces what they already believe. Not that I mean either of you two!

        1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
          Bill O’Keefe

          Agree. We are being driven by the Apocalyptics in high places and no longer are allowed to raise questions about uncertainties or models.

        2. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          If we talk about the vast majority of science – including agencies like NOAA and NASA and others worldwide – they are in agreement.

          Yes there are a much smaller number who disagree but if the stakes are serious damage to the earth – do we just totally, 100% rule out the majority of science and pick the minority of science and bet the farm that the majority are wrong?

          Conservatives are not usually seen as gamblers normally. They bet the odds except when it comes to whether or not the planet itself might be threatened. Nope, it’s see no-evil time.. just deny that there is even a chance of it.

          1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            Why does it have to be all or nothing and the all is an apocalyptic vision of the future?

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            It doesn’t and isn’t. The problem is we don’t know with 100% certainty …….AND we also know – we cannot stop all of it right now and are looking ahead to reduce gradually.

            That’s not exactly all or nothing.

            All or nothing is saying you are 100% certain there is no chance that global warming is real and could do permanent serious damage . How can anyone be that sure and not want to hedge their bets even a little?

        3. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Well, well, you’ve changed “change” to “catastrophe”. I don’t expect the atmosphere to “catch fire” either. But, it may change enough to cause a human catastrophe, e.g., war, death, famine, pestilence, etc.,… extinction.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Well, but the skeptics say there is almost ZERO chance of anything really bad happening, right?

            It’s sorta like a cigarette smoking saying if he only smokes 5 cigs a day instead of two packs, he’s almost 100% sure he’ll be okay… 😉

          2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Well, as one who likes an occasional cigar and a whiskey, I guess so long as there’s no asbestos…

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            re: ” Well, as one who likes an occasional cigar and a whiskey, I guess so long as there’s no asbestos”

            My trouble with smoking for me – cigarettes and cigars is the “ocassional” … and then inhaling the cigar smoke… and enjoying it. And I absolutely am loathe to hear that others smoked all their lives and lived to be 100.

  11. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
    Bill O’Keefe

    In addition to another BRAC, we need a restructuring of the armed forces that is focused on future threats that are likely and not one structured for two conventional wars and a limited one.

  12. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
    Bill O’Keefe

    The first mistake was putting all of its chips on offshore wind.

    1. TBill Avatar
      TBill

      Texas is waiting 10-20 years on off-shore wind, waiting for the technological and economic dust to settle. They are happy with onshore wind at the moment. Virginia is NOT inclined to do that, we want to “take the lead” on offshore wind. We need to move as fast as possible, no matter what the cost or financial risk.

      But rhetoric about taking the lead and actually accomplishing that are two different matters, and rushing off half baked is exactly what not to do.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Innovators dilemma.

      2. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
        Bill O’Keefe

        Many time someone says costs and risks be damned, you know that they are talking about someone else’s money and are not being seriously thoughtful.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          What’s the real downside of reducing fossil fuels use ?

          We spend money on all sorts of things that is not required and here we’re talking about spending it on something that may well be critical so what’s the difference?

          We haven’t “destroyed” the economy by spending out the wazoo for things like warships and 10 times more military bases than even the military says it needs…

          Building renewable creates jobs… just like building a warship that may well never be in a single battle.

          We spend billions / trillions sending spacecraft off to mars – is that “waste” ? It too, provides jobs and yes, we do pay taxes for it.

          Seems like one of the core issues for some is that they should be able to not pay taxes, keep that money and spend it on what they “need” – as if they know better what to spend it out – but millions of people fritter that money away on things they don’t “Need” but “want”.

          no?

          If we can spend money on water rides in amusement parks, why not wind turbines?

          1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            This is spoken like a true socialist who wants to be able to spend other peoples money. Consumer spending makes up 70% of GDP. If tax rates are too high to fund things that government wants to have, it is taking money from people who have worked to earn it. It is a truism that no one spends someone else’ money as carefully as they spend their own.
            You might be surprised at how much you would learn about the economy and economic growth by taking a few courses in economics.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Not TRUE! But the idea that people will only spend their money on essential things is simply not true either.

            We have roads and public schools because we won’t let people “keep their money”.

            The question has always been – how do we decide what the government should provide or not.

            And trust me – you won’t “earn” near as much money without public roads and public schools and other government-provided infrastucture and services.

            The rest of the civilized world has high functioning rail and transit, we do not. The rest of the civilized world has universal health care and they live much longer than Americans because we do not. The rest of the civlized world has much better educated kids and free college tuition and we do not but we sure as heck have College Sports!

            It’s not “socialist” to point out these things. you know!

          3. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            Roads are public goods which is what government is supposed to provide. As for the list of things you cite, if you like government actions and spending why isn’t it doing a better job?

        2. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          So I’m curious how you arrived at “supposed to”.

          They didn’t always. Right?

          At some point, Government STARTED to provide public roads (and pipelines and powerlines) and public eductationi, fire and rescue, water and sewer, etc…

          right?

          Other government in other countries did similar things but additional ones we did not – yet.

          I just don’t know how you know with certainty what Government should do or not – and what is “socialism”. Nothing is more socialist than public roads where the government takes property from people to give to others, no?

          1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            Do you know what a public good is or tyranny of the commons? As a general rule, if the private sector can provide a good, then the government shouldn’t and if the private sector can’t easily prevent free riders, then the government should be the provider. If you don’t know what socialism is then that explains your confusing and confused comments.

          2. cjbova Avatar
            cjbova

            Larry, Merriam-Webster definition of taking:
            a seizure of private property or a substantial deprivation of the right to its free use or enjoyment that is caused by government action and especially by the exercise of eminent domain and for which just compensation to the owner must be given according to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

            “for which just compensation must be given.”
            They even do that in Virginia.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Yes, but is what is or not a universal truth that we all know and agree about?

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Carol – indeed. Who deicdes what is “just compensation”, the same government that takes?

            More than that – do you think Government taking property for others is socialism ? Do you think paying for the taking changes whether it is socialism or not?

          5. cjbova Avatar
            cjbova

            If the parties involved don’t agree, the government agency goes to court to get an order allowing them to take the property and at the same time determines if the compensation offered is fair, or if it needs to be adjusted.

            Besides, the government doesn’t give the property to others, it gives everyone the right to use the road. Ownership stays with the government which is why they must give compensation.

          6. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Tell that to the Ottofaros…

            https://www.dailypress.com/news/hampton/dp-xpm-20120102-2012-01-02-dp-nws-frank-ottofaro-20120102-story.html

            Just compensation! Ha! Taking just what is needed! Ha!

          7. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            The point is that it’s the government that decides that land can be taken for public use and what reasons they can be taken for public use.

          8. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            re: ” Besides, the government doesn’t give the property to others, it gives everyone the right to use the road. Ownership stays with the government which is why they must give compensation.”

            hmm…must not be familiar with this:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

            or for that matter, Dominion taking land for a private sector pipeline…. that would transport and sell natural gas for a profit.

          9. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            talking about public roads, for those that might be interested – a historical account of how roads got started in Virginia:

            THE MOST CONVENIENT WAYES”A HISTORY OF ROADS IN VIRGINIA

            http://www.virginiadot.org/about/resources/historyofrds.pdf

          10. cjbova Avatar
            cjbova

            a historical account of how roads got started in Virginia:
            THE MOST CONVENIENT WAYES”A HISTORY OF ROADS IN VIRGINIA

            Very good, Larry. Did you read the section that said the first highway legislation was enacted in Jamestown in 1632, and …probably in March 1657, the colony’s basic road law was broadened to provide “that surveyors of highwaise and maintenance for bridges be yearly kept and appointed in each countie cort respectively.…’” This was still the case in 1785 when Thomas Jefferson said, “The roads are under the government of county courts, subject to be controlled by the general court.”
            The County Courts appointed commissioners to oversee the roads and their maintenance. The Court received petitions from landowners for new roads and assigned three road viewers to consider the best route and whether any orchards, gardens, trees or hedges would be impacted. They also ascertained which landowners would give their lands and which required compensation. The Court reviewed the viewers’ reports, determined conditions necessary for acceptance, and decided on the necessity of creating a new road. If any landowner required compensation, the Court determined the amount. The County Courts retained responsibility for establishment of public roads in Virginia until 1904, when the legislature transferred jurisdiction to the County Boards of Supervisors.

  13. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    There are still lots of questions. For instance, most inhabited islands in the world have to burn diesel fuel they have to import – not cheap and not clean and one might think they would be practical places to ADD large turbines and REDUCE their need to burn diesel 24/7.

    There are thousands of inhabited islands on earth that have no native fossil fuels to burn.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_islands

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Not significant enough to worry about. Besides, most of those diesel gensets will be 10′ underwater soon.

  14. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Steve H.
    Ahem! Nice try but Bacon’s already used the no wind power ruse before. Can’t you deniers comer up with anything new? Or maybe more recent such as this:?

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/wind-turbines-generated-more-half-great-britains-energy-boxing-day-180976669/#:~:text=A%20powerful%20storm%20sent%20the,record%2Dbreaking%20contribution%20of%20electricity&text=On%20December%2026%2C%20Great%20Britain,half%20of%20its%20total%20electricity.

  15. Matt Adams Avatar
    Matt Adams

    Historically, wind turbines operate at 30% efficiency max. Darn that Betz’s Law.

  16. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Efficiency is a legitimate issue:

    https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/ZbDVOD8vPwxvRvpGyUoTc8OI18vcUv23qYUdeAQRgmzySWyJeLlN1ESQr-Pipv1iJkjY0LwZSARcuWVFlfKNy9-zyjpYorDYdMtW7haFfs3LSFgUq4xi6rTsLihuZe57M1VH01F2

    Now, this is at the place it is produced. How do we calculate what it took to extract the fuel and transport it to that site?

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Magic. It magically appears on site when needed.

      Now, we must also include the cost of delivering BR hot air to the wind-driven turbines.

  17. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Yep Carol that’s when the socialism first started right?

Leave a Reply

Read More