By Peter Galuszka 

Offshore wind power is becoming a whipping boy even as the technology involved becomes more advanced and its costs go down.

Northwestern Europe is offshore wind headquarters globally and countries such as the United Kingdom have wholeheartedly embraced it.

Yet some critics, some of whom are supported financially by the fossil fuel industry, refuse to accept its growth and see its potential. They insist on keeping fossil fuel generating stations going that contribute to dangerous climate change. They also back nuclear plants that have a high capacity factor.

The problem is that any generating station can go offline for any number of reasons. Considering nukes, there are a few points to be made. Consider this from Power magazine:

“North Anna Power Station’s 1,865-MW twin pressurized water reactors were at full power when the quake struck on August 23, 2011, at 1:51 p.m. The quake’s epicenter was 11 miles southwest of the station in Mineral, Va. Both of the station’s units shut down immediately, automatically, and safely. As a result of the earthquake, the plant lost off-site power from the switchyard, but back-up power from diesel generators picked up the load within 8 seconds, as designed. The station returned to off-site power later that evening.”

The earthquake’s force was so strong that casks holding spent nuclear fuel at North Anna moved in their storage area, even though they weigh several tons each.

The North Anna situation closed the plant down for 80 days and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ordered extensive reviews of every commercial nuclear power plant in the country.

Power praised Dominion for its handling of the earthquake. Ironically, Virginia Electric & Power Co., Dominion’s predecessor, defied advice and built North Anna near a geological fault line back in the1970s.

VEPCO had enormous problems handling its nuclear program. The most trouble was at its Surry Nuclear Power Station. So severe was the mismanagement that investors were shunning the utility, the NRC was fining the firm the highest penalties in the country and the Department of Energy was warning of rolling brownouts due to outages.

At the time, I was a reporter covering energy at The Virginian Pilot on Norfolk. Another reporter and I were assigned to make an in depth probe of VEPCO’s nuclear program. The project took about two months and we published our story on Aug. 12, 1979, several months after the Three Mile Island disaster in Pennsylvania.

Pictured is the front page of the paper with our story. Not long afterwards, VEPCO shook up its top management and brought in a ringer, a highly experienced engineer, to turn things around.

About 10 years ago, PEPCO, the Washington area power firm was mismanaging its fossil fuel plants so much that it was warning of rolling blackouts. Here is a blog posting I wrote for The Washington Post at the time.

More recently, Dominion has had serious issues with its Virginia City Hybrid Energy Center which burns coal, waste coal and wood. It had been operating at times in recent months at only 20 percent capacity.

The point is that critics of renewable energy keep harping on its supposed unreliability. They boost fossil fuel and nukes. As shown here, both fossil and nuclear have their own problems. Yet, we keep hearing the same memes over and over again and after a while assume they are the reality. Yet, the real reality is that renewables are making giant strides.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

34 responses to “A New Fad: Bashing Offshore Wind Turbines”

  1. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    https://youtu.be/acxQbaDkhRc

    Ad Hominem Peter is back. I’m the one he is referring to when he mentions some unknown person taking fossil fuel dollars. Me. Who spent 12 years working for one of the world’s largest nuclear companies, and while there was on the team trying to develop a wind project with Gamesa. Sound like I’m a tool for the oil and coal boys? Years ago the Koch’s gave Mike Thompson some money for that “institute,” you know, the guy who is dead. But Peter seeks to tar me, and disputes my points with that attack. Sometimes I get sick of this and just quit but I thought I’d answer first.

    It is not in dispute that wind has a low capacity factor. When there is no wind, you get no power. It is not in dispute that having a utility-owned massive wind farm produces that intermittent electricity at far higher consumer cost than if a merchant generator built the plant and sold the power wholesale. These are easy facts to agree on, and to mention them seems to send Peter into a frenzy. Sorry bout that, Peter. It is not in dispute that total reliance on wind and solar will not work — there must be baseload, dispatchable generation in the mix. What is your problem with that? You are so ignorant on this front you don’t even know that VEPCO is still the legal entity name!

    1. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
      Reed Fawell 3rd

      To an ideologue, the truth is intolerable. Always is and always will be. That is why ideologues live in seas of ever more lies.

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Hey, just ’cause it’s self-serving doesn’t mean it isn’t also the right thing to do.

      That said, ….

    3. Not surprised Steve. Getting the VP reporters to tell the truth, you could easier get blood from a diamond. The facts never got in the way of their ideology. Peter was one of them, and one of the reasons that we have been able to get folks to stop subscribing to the TP (Toilet Paper, whoops I mean VP).

  2. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    https://youtu.be/acxQbaDkhRc

    Ad Hominem Peter is back. I’m the one he is referring to when he mentions some unknown person taking fossil fuel dollars. Me. Who spent 12 years working for one of the world’s largest nuclear companies, and while there was on the team trying to develop a wind project with Gamesa. Sound like I’m a tool for the oil and coal boys? Years ago the Koch’s gave Mike Thompson some money for that “institute,” you know, the guy who is dead. But Peter seeks to tar me, and disputes my points with that attack. Sometimes I get sick of this and just quit but I thought I’d answer first.

    It is not in dispute that wind has a low capacity factor. When there is no wind, you get no power. It is not in dispute that having a utility-owned massive wind farm produces that intermittent electricity at far higher consumer cost than if a merchant generator built the plant and sold the power wholesale. These are easy facts to agree on, and to mention them seems to send Peter into a frenzy. Sorry bout that, Peter. It is not in dispute that total reliance on wind and solar will not work — there must be baseload, dispatchable generation in the mix. What is your problem with that? You are so ignorant on this front you don’t even know that VEPCO is still the legal entity name!

    1. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
      Reed Fawell 3rd

      To an ideologue, the truth is intolerable. Always is and always will be. That is why ideologues live in seas of ever more lies.

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Hey, just ’cause it’s self-serving doesn’t mean it isn’t also the right thing to do.

      That said, ….

    3. Not surprised Steve. Getting the VP reporters to tell the truth, you could easier get blood from a diamond. The facts never got in the way of their ideology. Peter was one of them, and one of the reasons that we have been able to get folks to stop subscribing to the TP (Toilet Paper, whoops I mean VP).

  3. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
    Bill O’Keefe

    Just because someone raises questions about offshore wind does not make them a fossil or nuke toadie. There are legitimate questions about Dominion’s monstrous wind farm off the Virginia coast. Choices should be based on a total systems and cost analysis, including risks and reliability.
    Both Germany and Britain offer cautionary tales about over reliance on wind power.

  4. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
    Bill O’Keefe

    Just because someone raises questions about offshore wind does not make them a fossil or nuke toadie. There are legitimate questions about Dominion’s monstrous wind farm off the Virginia coast. Choices should be based on a total systems and cost analysis, including risks and reliability.
    Both Germany and Britain offer cautionary tales about over reliance on wind power.

  5. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead V

    “Offshore wind power is becoming a whipping boy”

    This could be interpreted as a troublesome phrase. Under the proposed 117th Rules of Congress the word boy must be substituted with the word child. Furthermore, “whipping boy” has a whiff of what anti racists are worked up about. Me personally, I get what Mr. Peter is talking about and it is fine. But there are many on the left who might not like this.

  6. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead V

    “Offshore wind power is becoming a whipping boy”

    This could be interpreted as a troublesome phrase. Under the proposed 117th Rules of Congress the word boy must be substituted with the word child. Furthermore, “whipping boy” has a whiff of what anti racists are worked up about. Me personally, I get what Mr. Peter is talking about and it is fine. But there are many on the left who might not like this.

  7. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    I didn’t name anyone specifically about working for the fossil fuel companies. It is true, however, that the fossil fuel interests are projecting their own narrative, just as the greenies are. I fail to see how identifying such interests is an “ad hominen attack.” I haven’t seen that term much this blog until recently.
    I filed the blog post because it is important to realize that ALL modes of generating electricity can have problems. We point out that on “Wind Day,” there wasn’t much wind in the U.K> You have to do your pown research to find out that on “Boxing Day” there was so much wind, the turbines supplied half the country’s power.

    Utilities also get huge public subsidies. Oil did with depletion allowance and tax breaks. Nukes did because much of the research was Navy money. The Price Anderson Act shielded commercial nukes from catastrophic lawsuits. Vepco/Dominion has had problems with all of generating plants over the years. Yet all we hear on this blog is that the might not blow and the sun might not be shining. There are lots of complaints about Dominion sticking ratepayers with green costs, but they have ALWAYS stuck ratepayers with the costs of fossil fuel and nukes. What’s new here.
    Another problem is that I get a sense that there is a different universe here. When you read national and international publications you get a more progressive sense of the world–that it is changing, climate change is a real threat and something has to be done. Some major oil companies are seriously thinking of redirecting their investments away from petroleum. Here it’s all “it’s too expensive” or “it’s risky” or whatever. I heard the same things when people wanted tougher strip mine laws in West Virginia in the 1960s. It wasn’t until 125 people were killed when a sludge dam broke at Buffalo Creek that laws got passed. Ditto NEPA and the water and air acts of the late 1960s and early 1970s.
    Now, you are hearing about the “threats” of wind and solar.
    Wait another day, and we’ll be inundated with the threats of “woke” cultural warriors, “Critical Race Theory” and all kinds of hobgobblins.
    The new cure all to blunt other views is the “ad hominem attack.” Believe me I have been the target of so many recently that I have thought of quitting. But that’s really the point, isn’t it?

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      I haven’t been part of the Defense of the White Man Parade and do not intend to join it. I have long advocated for the balance in power generation we need, with wind and solar certainly part of that. But your shot at “those who are supported financially by the fossil fuel industry” was your typical ignorant cheap shot. The money that fed the 401K and brokerage accounts that allow me to waste my time here did not come from coal, oil or gas. All carbon free, baby. (Well, my granddaddy’s bank stock came from the SWVA coal economy back in the day…)

  8. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    I didn’t name anyone specifically about working for the fossil fuel companies. It is true, however, that the fossil fuel interests are projecting their own narrative, just as the greenies are. I fail to see how identifying such interests is an “ad hominen attack.” I haven’t seen that term much this blog until recently.
    I filed the blog post because it is important to realize that ALL modes of generating electricity can have problems. We point out that on “Wind Day,” there wasn’t much wind in the U.K> You have to do your pown research to find out that on “Boxing Day” there was so much wind, the turbines supplied half the country’s power.

    Utilities also get huge public subsidies. Oil did with depletion allowance and tax breaks. Nukes did because much of the research was Navy money. The Price Anderson Act shielded commercial nukes from catastrophic lawsuits. Vepco/Dominion has had problems with all of generating plants over the years. Yet all we hear on this blog is that the might not blow and the sun might not be shining. There are lots of complaints about Dominion sticking ratepayers with green costs, but they have ALWAYS stuck ratepayers with the costs of fossil fuel and nukes. What’s new here.
    Another problem is that I get a sense that there is a different universe here. When you read national and international publications you get a more progressive sense of the world–that it is changing, climate change is a real threat and something has to be done. Some major oil companies are seriously thinking of redirecting their investments away from petroleum. Here it’s all “it’s too expensive” or “it’s risky” or whatever. I heard the same things when people wanted tougher strip mine laws in West Virginia in the 1960s. It wasn’t until 125 people were killed when a sludge dam broke at Buffalo Creek that laws got passed. Ditto NEPA and the water and air acts of the late 1960s and early 1970s.
    Now, you are hearing about the “threats” of wind and solar.
    Wait another day, and we’ll be inundated with the threats of “woke” cultural warriors, “Critical Race Theory” and all kinds of hobgobblins.
    The new cure all to blunt other views is the “ad hominem attack.” Believe me I have been the target of so many recently that I have thought of quitting. But that’s really the point, isn’t it?

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      I haven’t been part of the Defense of the White Man Parade and do not intend to join it. I have long advocated for the balance in power generation we need, with wind and solar certainly part of that. But your shot at “those who are supported financially by the fossil fuel industry” was your typical ignorant cheap shot. The money that fed the 401K and brokerage accounts that allow me to waste my time here did not come from coal, oil or gas. All carbon free, baby. (Well, my granddaddy’s bank stock came from the SWVA coal economy back in the day…)

  9. When I lived in California, rockhounds used to joke that if you want to find a new fault, look for a nuclear power plant. Diablo Canyon power plant’s history is one example. But the issue there wasn’t nuclear power, it’s regulators who ignored seismologists in favor of utilities’ opinions.

    When utilities call the shots without sufficient oversight, the consumers bear the risk and the expense. Diablo Canyon is P G & E’s, the same PG & E whose maintenance policies were responsible for the Camp Fire that destroyed 150,000 acres and led to the deaths of 85 people and displacement of 35,000 people.

    Questions about any power source, especially a new one like offshore wind, should be asked and answered. Although the question concerns cost, not safety, I’m still waiting for Dominion’s reply about the expected lifespan of the offshore wind turbines and whether the plan estimates include the cost of repowering or decommissioning. I inquired on October 27 and received a polite response to a follow up on December 2nd that the responder was “working to get the last bit of information.”

    Meanwhile, Dominion filed the plans for the commercial 2640-megawatt project with Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) on December 18.

  10. When I lived in California, rockhounds used to joke that if you want to find a new fault, look for a nuclear power plant. Diablo Canyon power plant’s history is one example. But the issue there wasn’t nuclear power, it’s regulators who ignored seismologists in favor of utilities’ opinions.

    When utilities call the shots without sufficient oversight, the consumers bear the risk and the expense. Diablo Canyon is P G & E’s, the same PG & E whose maintenance policies were responsible for the Camp Fire that destroyed 150,000 acres and led to the deaths of 85 people and displacement of 35,000 people.

    Questions about any power source, especially a new one like offshore wind, should be asked and answered. Although the question concerns cost, not safety, I’m still waiting for Dominion’s reply about the expected lifespan of the offshore wind turbines and whether the plan estimates include the cost of repowering or decommissioning. I inquired on October 27 and received a polite response to a follow up on December 2nd that the responder was “working to get the last bit of information.”

    Meanwhile, Dominion filed the plans for the commercial 2640-megawatt project with Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) on December 18.

  11. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Steve. Show me where I said that. Thanks

  12. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Steve. Show me where I said that. Thanks

  13. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Also steve. I know you don’t participate in the racial rants and I do respect your knowledge of rate setting the SCC. Not many know about it. I do not.

  14. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Also steve. I know you don’t participate in the racial rants and I do respect your knowledge of rate setting the SCC. Not many know about it. I do not.

  15. If built w/o tax $- go wild!

  16. If built w/o tax $- go wild!

  17. New fad- Actually really old fad-
    Any idea that Liberals like, the cries come from on high-

    XXX is bashing Liberals plan YYY to save Humanity;
    We know XXX are criminally unethical,
    Therefore YYY must be instituted ASAP.

    Hey folks, this is hard science talking on the Liberal side. Meanwhile, XXX never really said anything half the time, it is just good red meat to throw out there to get liberal support, based on their outrage about the Deplorables.

  18. New fad- Actually really old fad-
    Any idea that Liberals like, the cries come from on high-

    XXX is bashing Liberals plan YYY to save Humanity;
    We know XXX are criminally unethical,
    Therefore YYY must be instituted ASAP.

    Hey folks, this is hard science talking on the Liberal side. Meanwhile, XXX never really said anything half the time, it is just good red meat to throw out there to get liberal support, based on their outrage about the Deplorables.

  19. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    VN , I reference a story from 41 years ago. Us there anything false I. Our story? Please let me know.

  20. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    VN , I reference a story from 41 years ago. Us there anything false I. Our story? Please let me know.

  21. Top-GUN Avatar

    PG is comparing apples and oranges…
    One he talks about mismanagement of nuclear and fossil plants and then claims they are unreliable just like wind plants…
    Wind plants are inherently “unreliable” because they don’t make power when the wind doesn’t blow… that’s guaranteed no matter how well they run,,, they will be doubly unreliable if they are mismanaged!!
    And there is a difference in a nuke plant that might experience a once in a lifetime earthquake and a wind plant that regularly experiences days of no wind….

  22. Top-GUN Avatar

    PG is comparing apples and oranges…
    One he talks about mismanagement of nuclear and fossil plants and then claims they are unreliable just like wind plants…
    Wind plants are inherently “unreliable” because they don’t make power when the wind doesn’t blow… that’s guaranteed no matter how well they run,,, they will be doubly unreliable if they are mismanaged!!
    And there is a difference in a nuke plant that might experience a once in a lifetime earthquake and a wind plant that regularly experiences days of no wind….

  23. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Top GUN. There Was an earthquake. It shut off north Anna for nearly three months. Bad management has hampered generation. What’s your point? Avoid offshore wind because if your assumptions?

  24. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Top GUN. There Was an earthquake. It shut off north Anna for nearly three months. Bad management has hampered generation. What’s your point? Avoid offshore wind because if your assumptions?

  25. Top-GUN Avatar

    Evidently you can’t read…
    My point clearly stated at the beginning is you are comparing APPLES and ORANGES…
    Wind power is not reliable as an energy source because it Regularly, as in every time the wind doesn’t blow, doesn’t produce energy..
    Nuke power is a reliable energy source, as are fossil fueled plants,, fire them up, turn them on and they run 24 7, power available when you need it…
    Just because one might have a rare and occasional shut down does not make them unreliable…
    An example: An employee who misses days, calls in sick, shows up late and always has excuses is unreliable!!!
    An employee who regularly shows up on time 99% of the time is not “unreliable” because once in 3 years he is late,,,.

  26. Top-GUN Avatar

    Evidently you can’t read…
    My point clearly stated at the beginning is you are comparing APPLES and ORANGES…
    Wind power is not reliable as an energy source because it Regularly, as in every time the wind doesn’t blow, doesn’t produce energy..
    Nuke power is a reliable energy source, as are fossil fueled plants,, fire them up, turn them on and they run 24 7, power available when you need it…
    Just because one might have a rare and occasional shut down does not make them unreliable…
    An example: An employee who misses days, calls in sick, shows up late and always has excuses is unreliable!!!
    An employee who regularly shows up on time 99% of the time is not “unreliable” because once in 3 years he is late,,,.

Leave a Reply