Snippet from UVA video showing how winds can destroy a large wind turbine.  Click for larger view.

by Steve Haner

Researchers at the University of Virginia are part of an ongoing effort to redesign wind turbines to be both more efficient and better protected from storm-scale winds, as described in this video you can find on a university website.

What is the problem to be addressed? Says one of the engineers:

As you get these larger wind turbines, your blades end up becoming more flexible and if you’re upwind then when the wind comes in and hits those blades, they can curve backwards and then it can hit that tower and destroy the entire turbine.

 

You can see an example of that happening on the video. It is not just theory.

So, great idea. Hurricane-resistant turbines with flexible blades facing downwind. Is that what Dominion Energy Virginia is about to build off Virginia’s shores, the cost billed entirely to its captive ratepayers? Well, no, actually. It is the old design  But no problem – it won’t cost the company any money if a storm replicates that damage you see in that video. We customers will pay.

Dominion Energy Virginia’s Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project is an epic mistake for Virginia. Yet thanks to the Virginia General Assembly the regulators at the State Corporation Commission are most likely going to approve it because the Assembly stripped them of their traditional oversight role with the 2020 Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA). Virginia’s Republican governor appears to be among the cheerleaders.

Another screenshot from the UVA video.

The wind project’s application process and subsequent review have developed a large amount of information about the project, but little news coverage, so most Virginians remain clueless about what is coming.   Here are five reasons why the SCC should say no.

First and foremost is the secrecy. Despite some efforts by Attorney General Jason Miyares, creating a bit more transparency, pages and pages of data – entire reports even – remain under seal and visible only to those who have sworn secrecy. The data covers known and possible risks that could throw the project off schedule or even cause catastrophic failure. It also covers some of the economic analysis, leaving outsiders to decide whether to trust the rosy projections from the utility.

What are they hiding? Does it include discussions of the risk demonstrated on the video?

Second is the ownership structure. One fact that is on the record is that no other offshore wind project proposed so far in the United States is 100% owned by a vertically integrated monopoly with captive ratepayers. If any of those known or unknown risks kick in, the added cost flows down to the 2.5 million Dominion customer accounts in this state.

It could have been a third party building the plant and signing a contract to sell power to the utility. Then the third party carries the risk of losing revenue if the plant fails to operate as proposed. There is a similar set up where the utility subsidizes the privately-owned plant by promising to buy the renewable energy credits rather than the electricity, again shedding risk. Dominion opted for placing the full risk on its ratepayers.

Third, the power isn’t needed, not now and not for decades. In a wonderfully circular argument, the plant is needed to comply with the 2020 VCEA law, which of course was conceived and written by Dominion’s lawyers and lobbyists. Eventually, VCEA will force closure of Dominion’s very efficient natural gas generators. It will make the gas facilities less economically efficient in the meantime, but with them running at capacity and no turbines Virginia would have plenty of generation available.

The dirty secret on wind and solar is that they only work sometimes, but we need power always. Without the natural gas backup, Dominion cannot meet its load on cloudy, windless days. Missing from all the current equations are billions of dollars needed for gigawatts of battery backup if the gas plants close.

Fourth is the cost. The General Assembly bought the bogus argument that the plant would be “reasonable and prudent” if it only cost 40% more than the least efficient kind of natural gas plant, a peaking plant that runs almost never. If Dominion needs more generation, solar and onshore wind facilities would provide power for less money. Another gas plant would be better still, but the VCEA stands in the way of that option.

The SCC staff examined and costed out several ways that the advertised construction cost of almost $10 billion could prove too low or the 2027 scheduled completion could be delayed. Any combination of them would explode Dominion’s future rates. The SCC staff also raised the specter of the missing battery backup and its related cost.

That is the fifth reason, the prospect of failure, the operational risk. Dominion is claiming that the 176 turbines will really put out only 40% of their advertised 2,600 megawatts. Even that depends on only minimal maintenance stops and 25 years of perfect operation. The harsh ocean environment may quickly degrade the efficiency of the machines and the 40% capacity factor promise will then fade into history. A category five hurricane could destroy it in a day (see video above for how.)

Notice that not even mentioned are the likely issues that will arise when time comes to remove the rusted-out towers and miles of cable, the impact the project may have on endangered right whales or sea birds, or the major transmission lines that will crisscross Hampton Roads to connect all this. Litigation could delay the project.

The case to reject this project is overwhelming, which is why the General Assembly made rejecting it impossible.

First published this morning by the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy. 


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

65 responses to “Five Reasons to Reject Offshore Wind”

  1. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    some interesting news of late:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8e7f6aab2575e1b1e7b6067dd7f3dc5ad0d669f0a7fcb455c0ef16a955d274b1.jpg

    so would/should we switch to less expensive fuels if they are available even if they are not 24/7 “available” but they actually are available during the day when demand on the grid is high?

    1. Indeed, constraining and criticizing fossil fuel investment and development creates shortages. Welcome to green world.

    2. James Kiser Avatar
      James Kiser

      Your point about the WSJ article which you didn’t read is prices are up because Europe went all in on “Green” and their “green ” system can’t supply the power. So they are buying gas like there is no tomorrow.Also in Europe hundreds died from heat but deaths from cold are usually 4.5 times that of heat. Try reading Bjorn Lomborg’s analysis of the how the present “green” movement has it all wrong in the same issue of the WSJ.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Actually I did read it.. and just as the headline stated – increased demand due to hotter weather…

        but you want me to switch from fact-based “news” to “opinion” to get the facts?

        😉

        1. James Kiser Avatar
          James Kiser

          nope I don’t what you referring too as WSJ writes opinion too into the articles. Lomborgs article was on the opinion pages and well worth reading.

    3. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      That just makes offshore wind more expensive too, due to the energy needed to make the turbines, etc. This may slow down the other offshore projects (NY,NJ), but not Virginia as we are forging full speed ahead, despite the torpedoes and we do not care about cost.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        if you believe that turbines won’t be also made from energy from turbines instead of gas?

    4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      And during these hottest days of the year and peak demand hours, guess which fuel is cheapest… I generated 14.4 kWh of excess power yesterday and ran my net meter backwards, for example.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0a9e5dcb7f4c69be618764e441d9c47ef10d1e12749d5c5a62f0bafdbbf4aba1.jpg

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Yep. The opposition’s mindset is really dumb.

        In any other time and place, Conservatives would almost ALWAYS say “use the least costly fuel” but today – it’s a who different thang!

        I’m envious of your setup.

        You’ve got both solar and ground-based heat pump, right?

        Are your batteries lithium?

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          No batteries needed with net metering…

  2. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    and looks like the SCC is still onboard with renewables and giving Appalachian Power the same ability to increase rates to pay for it:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/22ecd94188f0eacb3b6f26c5e2b8e304936569d6addfbe05c49f8da492e64022.jpg

  3. Steve makes an extremely strong case here. Everyone needs to watch the UVa video. It’s not very long. The revelation by UVa’s wind-power advocates that offshore wind turbines could suffer catastrophic damage in hurricane-level winds should be a wake-up call to everyone.

    The video is hopeful that the technology UVa is testing in Colorado would produce even more electricity at lower cost than conventional wind turbines with less risk. I hope the technology pans out. If it does, then offshore wind sounds like a much more viable proposition. Unfortunately, the Virginia Clean Energy Act creates an arbitrary deadline for achieving a net-zero grid, which, along with the way Dominion has structured the deal, locks in outdated technology and puts rate payers on the receiving end if anything goes wrong.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      There is no question there are potential issues – just like with any new technology – and to a certain extent the Virginia offshore turbines are somewhat a pilot project but we have big turbines in the midwest where there are significant tornados and turbines in the North Sea which is famous for it’s horrendous weather so this is more boogeyman fear porn than anything else and it’s coming from folks who climate deniers – not exactly objective folks like UVA which starts off saying wind power is here and will advance – but does has issues to be addressed – as opposed to they are fatally flawed like the climate deniers are arguing.

      ya’ll have zero credibility on this JAB.

      The funny thing here is how many times hurricanes take down the grid onshore and not a peep from you folks pointing out the “flaws” of onshore electricity …

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        $10 billion of our money is not a pilot program. And restoring a transformer in my backyard is way easier than rebuilding a turbine 27 miles out at sea, when the replacement part comes from Denmark. Jeez, Larry, up your game.

      2. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        $10 billion of our money is not a pilot program. And restoring a transformer in my backyard is way easier than rebuilding a turbine 27 miles out at sea, when the replacement part comes from Denmark. Jeez, Larry, up your game.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Is $7B?

      3. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        $10 billion of our money is not a pilot program. And restoring a transformer in my backyard is way easier than rebuilding a turbine 27 miles out at sea, when the replacement part comes from Denmark. Jeez, Larry, up your game.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          yeah it is… de facto… the questions we have that have not been answered and won’t be until they are built.

          Until then some are just playing fear porn games IMO.

          1. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            Including UVA!?

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Well you DO have to LISTEN to the words:

            “Renewable energy is very much the future
            of not just the national energy portfolio but the world energy portfolio.”

            see, they’re not talking about it being a obstacle that cannot be overcome.

            They’re talking about how to improve them because they “are” the future.

            And you’ve taken that and converted it into an “anti” narrative… from the climate deniers…

            bad… but expected….

            This is a luddite rant….

  4. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Oh God! There could be a hurricane, tornado, volcanic eruption! Or, maybe even an atmospheric flashover.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      No, WILL be. 🙂 A hurricane or three in a 30-year window is pretty easy to assume.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        As Ted Kennedy used to say, “We’ll cross that bridge when we get to it. Well, better’n half way, anyway.”

  5. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Oh God! There could be a hurricane, tornado, volcanic eruption! Or, maybe even an atmospheric flashover.

  6. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    Several structural factors encourage Dominion to make this investment.

    (1) Dominion is a monopoly, so the public has to pay the cost + profits. This is great project for Dominion stockholders, even if it fails. It is zero-risk for Dominion .

    (2) Unlike fossil fuels, where we all pay the cost, most states especially Virginia give large electric price discounts to businesses. This puts the cost burden on the homeowners, and eliminates much of the opposition from businesses.

    These two factors explain why there is such rush by utilities nation-wide to build out new green power facilities.

  7. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    Had to leave the house and missed the start of the debate. Seems like the other side has “but, but, but…climate change!” and nothing else. All five points are valid and so far uncontested….

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      oh you need “official” ?

      First and foremost is the secrecy.

      Do you mean more than other projects and unique to wind? Nice try. No cigar. Dominion and Va have done that dance long before wind.

      Second is the ownership structure.
      Approved by the same folks that knee-capped the GA? Irony here , eh?

      ” Dominion opted for placing the full risk on its ratepayers.”

      Do you mean like they have not for other projects like the Nukes or the coal ash cleanup?

      “Third, the power isn’t needed, not now and not for decades. ”

      as long as you assume natural gas prices will never go up, right?

      would you turn down using wind when it is available if it is 1/3 the cost of gas?
      why?

      “The dirty secret on wind and solar is they only work sometimes”

      no different than hydro power which is not always available either, right?

      They should rename this post:

      Climate Deniers boogeyman tales

  8. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    https://thehackernews.com/2022/07/pro-china-group-uses-dragonbridge.html?m=1

    Okay, that’s lithium and such. Now, let’s see if we can find where Steve’s getting his windy attitude…

    1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      I’ve gone electric!!!…so far as my lawn mower is concerned. Stay tuned for future reports. Spoiler- most of the mower cost is the lithium battery and charger, which is 2-yr warranty. Sort of like Kodak with cameras and film…

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Quite well, for the most part. I’d rather be at sea than be a poor lubber on a night like this.

      1. John Harvie Avatar
        John Harvie

        Hove to, I hope.

  9. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Good article. Clear, well structured and easy to understand.

    The key remains a system where the monopoly electrical supplier can make unlimited campaign donations to the politicians that are supposed to regulate that monopoly.

    The sheer absurdity of that lack of ethics seems lost on the majority of Virginia’s electorate.

    As for the UVa video – glad to see you found some value from the university in Charlottesville. However, UVa’s DEI army has failed. I did not see one black or brown face in the video. How could it have been released to the public?

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Good point…. 🙂 Damn, you Hoos are touchy. My main reason for preferring W&M 50 years ago really was the gender ratio (and avoiding all the crap I’d have to take from my Hokie relatives.) Of course, two weeks in that target rich environment and I’d already been hooked and landed for good (50th anniversary of our memorable 9/11 meeting just weeks away now.)

      1. John Harvie Avatar
        John Harvie

        Ratio was good 77 years ago too in the ‘Burg.

        I had best job on campus: Lifeguard at basement pool of Blow Gym for 6am shift when girls swim team practiced.

  10. If ratepayers are investors then Dominion’s secrecy re risks violates securities laws and SEC regulations requiring full disclosure of risk.

  11. Good to know they finally noticed the missing batteries!
    See my “Dominion’s VCEA Compliance Plan is Disastrously Unreliable”
    http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/VCEA-Reliability-Research-Report.pdf?mc_cid=a4827a5419&mc_cid=8d1127ec83&mc_eid=af7d3e4fc4

    The batteries needed to make that OSW power reliable would cost way more than the project’s $10 billion.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Still, we’re talking, what, $7B for the Mountain Valley Pipeline? That’s assuming they are being truthful about the percentage of completeness.

      1. Which operates continuously and is not subject to hurricane damage, unless a small piece washes away. Pipelines are old reliable tech. These monster east coast wind farms are untried, except we know that their output is variable and intermittent.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Earthquake? Russian hackers? Or, just a massive explosion?

  12. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    “The case to reject this project is overwhelming, which is why the General Assembly made rejecting it impossible.”

    Indeed! This ship has been christened and will set sail soon.

    I think I know which hill Mr. Haner will fix bayonets and defend now. It’s the one with fossil fuels under it.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      I might have been on Cemetery Ridge that hot July day, sir, but I like to think I’d have been there wearing blue. (Wishful thinking probably.) Michigan on my father’s side. 🙂

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      naw, he’s smarter than that…. I think…

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Bayonet? Steve? Steve fix bayonets? Jeez, what good would he be with only one eye?

      “You’ll put an eye out, kid.”

    4. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      I might have been on Cemetery Ridge that hot July day, sir, but I like to think I’d have been there wearing blue. (Wishful thinking probably.) Michigan on my father’s side. 🙂

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead

        I could not resist the clap back Mr. H! All in good fun. I appreciate all the useful information I have learned from you on the wind/solar issue.

      2. Note that there was likely no or low wind that day. Heatwaves tend to see no wind power, another negative.

        I would be in gray, so shooting at you. My mother’s middle name was Virginia.

        1. John Harvie Avatar
          John Harvie

          Me too. My grandfather was one of the Newmarket cadets.

  13. Randy Huffman Avatar
    Randy Huffman

    President Biden is declaring a climate emergency and Virginia is plowing Billions to rush into building this, yet China and the world still builds coal plants, and steal our manufacturing base with low cost energy (yes, Coal is the low cost energy source, if you would let production ramp back up cost efficiently).

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2317274-china-is-building-more-than-half-of-the-worlds-new-coal-power-plants/

    Despite the love that comes to people like me from Progressives, I’m no denier. I feel coal power should stay as part of the mix, but be limited. I embrace all kinds of energy sources and put solar on my house and drive a hybrid, and hope wind technology can expand and represent a good portion of energy production. I am a skeptic that all of this the Progressives are trying to ram through is going to accomplish anything remotely close to what they claim, especially when most of the World does nothing.

    I would have a lot more respect for zero carbon initiatives if they would put nuclear front and center as a major source of electrical generation.
    It runs 24/7 baseload, is not affected by weather as long as you protect it from tsunami’s and have a plan when severe weather hits like a tornado or hurricane, and it really does represent cutting edge technology that can power the word (and beyond) centuries in the future.

  14. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    Steve- I can add 6,7,8,9,10. If we can number the reasons, we can save a lot of time. Like Excedrin headache 101. In the future just say: 5 and 6. 6 being right whales, which I did read about elsewhere today, so David was right, whales are a “thing”.

  15. JayCee Avatar

    So, not that radial and axial turbines are coming along in development, we are being rushed to pour money into soon to be obsolete propeller driven generators. Suckers, Radial and Axial direct drive is more efficient, way more reliable and takes less space. And further out is Windwheel in the Netherlands. and then there is vortex shedding.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3sSCwi4VJA

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      I would expect as time goes by the typical evolution cycles we see for most technologies.

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Really cool, JayCee, totally new to me. (But I noted another reference to current designs shattering.)

      1. JayCee Avatar

        We are locking in our losses with current wind power technology. What is nice about this is they can be mounted vertically, on a roof, stacked on poles and are easier to conceal so they don’t ruin the landscape.. as much. The large area requirement of a propeller and the need to space them apart to stay in clean air isn’t an issues for these.

        1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
          energyNOW_Fan

          Texas is waiting for the technology to develop and for costs to come down for OFFshore wind. Virginia wants to take the risk to take the lead, and get the money flowing (to elected officials).

  16. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    I am sure they will design for this but as far as I can tell, no hurricane has ever been at Cat 5 level when it has hit landfall in the Mid-Atlantic. Given this fact (again as far as I can tell) an insurance policy to cover damages from such an event should be nominal in the grand scheme. Not saying they will pull such a policy as they are likely self-insured for such things but if they did it would head off this particular complaint/concern. Could the SCC require such a policy to protect rate payers? If so and if they don’t, perhaps they deem the risk so remote as to be acceptable.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      But but but climate change! Everywhere I look I see warnings that The Worst is Yet to Come!! Storms Impossible to Imagine!! So of course the turbines will fail!! Are you a DENIER, Sir Troll? (Somebody needs to tell them that nobody believes a damn word of it anymore due to their lies and hyperbole.)

      No way in Hell will Dominion let an underwriter do a study of this risk and calculate a premium.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        You don’t think underwriters already have calculated the risk of a Cat 5 making landfall in the mid-atlantic…? As far as the premium for $X of coverage, that would surely be non-public information. No the real reason is that the risk is so low that Dominion would be foolish to not self-insure it and the SCC likely agrees.

Leave a Reply