(Wind) power that is too pricey

[Statistical]

Forget federal resource permits for a minute. Forget the possible impairment of cultural ceremonies. And forget, for just a minute, worries about a coastal view.

What happened this week in Rhode Island to a proposed offshore wind project has immediately endangered one project and makes one wonder what the future impacts are on other projects that have to contend with federal permits and unhappy neighbors. Add state regulators to the list of naysayers if they deem that prices negotiated in the power purchase agreement (PPA) between the project developer and the utility are too high.

The Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission unanimously rejected the PPA negotiated by Deepwater Wind and National Grid for an eight-turbine project off Block Island. The PPA anticipates the turbines would be spinning in 2013, with Deepwater to be paid 24.4 cents per kilowatt-hour, with a yearly 3.5 percent increase thereafter.

Even though Deepwater was building an eight-turbine demonstration project that wouldn't enjoy the economies of scale a larger project would, the commission wasn't buying. The commissioners said the project failed to meet the standard of being "commercially reasonable" set out by state law.

http://www.renewablesbiz.com/article/10/03/power-thats-too-pricey

[phantom power]

1. Failure to communicate? Or maybe scope creep?

For some reason, it seems like Deepwater took a knife to a gunfight.

[Statistical]

2. After asking for 24.4 cents per kWh is it really wise to also ask for 3.5% annual inflation? n/t

[phantom power]

3. Yeah, "don't get greedy." The thing that bemuses me a little is: "why a pilot installation?"

Seems to me we're past that. People are putting up commercial scale wind installations. And it sounds like the Commission was expecting a serious commercial offering, large enough for economies of scale, etc.

Not 8 turbines at R&D prices.

[Dead_Parrot]

4. Because they're testing to see how much they can screw out of the commission?

:shrug:

[phantom power]

5. "well documented failure"

[kristopher]

6. They are developing a novel technology for deepwater.

They propose mounting large (10MW+ eventually?) wind turbines on a barge that can be moored in deep water. A pilot project with only 8 turbines is going to be expensive. It seems like the state and the company had an agreement but the business community (read Teabaggers) have been on the warpath the past week and have portrayed this pilot project as a typical wind project - much like the nuclear supporters on this board.

Interesting company you guys keep. Teabaggers and Koch petroleum are on the same page you are regarding wind...

[Statistical]

7. You think 24.4 cents per kWh (plus 2 cent federal subsidies) plus 3.5% annual escalation is good?

You are in favor of this plan going through?

30 years of compounded price growth at 3.5% is 281%.
So 23.4 cents per kWh today, 40.8 cents per kWh 15 years from now, 68.5 cents per kWh 30 years from now.
Plus add 2 cents per kWh for taxpayer direct subsidies.

Really how can you possibly defend that? Oh yeah because wind can do no wrong in your book.

[kristopher]

12. So you support committing $1.5 billion dollars for an unproven technology?

Which of those nuclear power plants were built without government help?

96% of the noncarbon energy subisdies over the past 50 years have gone to nuclear power. Are you saying that paying for a wind test project by a power purchase agreement that purchases power at above market rates is a horrible idea?

Are you aware that nuclear is almost guaranteed to require the same type of PPA on a vastly, vastly larger scale if they are to avoid bankruptcy? And that is in addition to the loan guarantees and carrying the insurance costs...

[phantom power]

8. If they're doing R&D sure. It just seems like they were submitting a pilot...

to somebody who wanted a commercial installation, not R&D. Somebody somewhere didn't make it clear what they wanted.

:shrug:

[Dead_Parrot]

9. There can't be that much R&D

They're putting wind turbines (fairly standard tech) on top of oil-rig style platforms (fairly standard tech). Seaenergy in the UK are doing the same thing, and call it "Proven offshore capability"...



Compare:
http://www.seaenergy-plc.com/seaenergyrenewables/
http://www.dwwind.com/technology.html

[kristopher]

11. So you recommend spending $1.5B on an unproven technology?

No wonder you are such a fan of nuclear power...

[Dead_Parrot]

13. Unproven?

Dude, have you not twigged these are photos?



These were completed 3 years ago. Unless you're going to channel NNadir and argue that they could collapse at any minute - that would be fun to watch.

[kristopher]

16. Wow a nameless photo that means abolutely nothing to the discussion.

You always have been a whiz.

[Dead_Parrot]

17. You know that link I posted to seaenergy?

You might want to click it and read a little. Or, of course, you can carry on burbling away with no clue as to what you're actually talking about.

Which we're all quite used to, so either is fine. :)

[kristopher]

22. You have a photo on a website, the state of RI had an detailed bidding process.

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

[Dead_Parrot]

23. Aww, can Kwissy-wissy not work the big mean link?

Poor Kwissy-wissy.

Have a kitten.



There there. Maybe the mean man with his mean information will go away now.

[joshcryer]

20. The real irony about that second link? They espouse the inexpensive nature...

...of their approach.

[Dead_Parrot]

24. Yeah, but inexpensive approaches don't come cheap. y'know. nt.

[kristopher]

10. They have been selected by the state to build a $1.5B 110 turbine installation

This is an 8 turbine precursor to that, and it is not unusual for a pilot projects cost to be significantly higher than the follow on project.

http://thephoenix.com/Providence/News/88435-Mighty-Wind/


So it is clear what was being done. What you were cheering so heartily is a Chamber of Commerce style success by the Teabaggers and the Club for Growth.

Attaboy.

[DLnyc]

14. "mounting large (10MW+ eventually?) wind turbines on a barge

that can be moored in deep water" . . . No wonder it would cost 24 cents a kilowatt.

Maybe deep water is not the best place to try to put large turbines.

Yes, it's very important to Koch to discredit any potential competitors. However, I don't think they would be spending this much energy on discrediting wind power, if it wasn't already clear that it is a very viable competitor to fossil fuel and nuclear power.

[kristopher]

15. Koch is the money behind Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound

The antiwind group organizing opposition to offshore wind off Cape Cod. They have spent millions blocking the project since it was proposed, and in the process they have created an entire online support structure that enables astroturf opposition of wind farms everywhere. There are always people who oppose any kind of development, and the efforts of the Kochs have supplied all the misinformation so that this small percentage of people who are against wind (it has a 90+% approval rating) have the tools for spreading fear uncertainty and doubt in order to influence a much larger segment of the local population.

It is a strategy deliberately designed to use the public input process to derail renawable energy everywhere possible, and unfortunately it is effective enough to raise the risks to renewable developers (largely small time operators) substantially.

[farmbo]

18. Ontario, CA is paying 19 cents kw/hr for offshore wind...

... so 24 cents for a small scale poilt project is not that far off the mark.

Typical US local government... can't see past their noses.

[NNadir]

21. That price is double US grid power prices, and 4 to 5 times busbar costs of nuclear

energy.

It sort of validates the notion that wind power is a rationalization made by wealthy people for wealthy people and is not even remotely connected with the interests of the largest single economic group on the face of the earth, the poor.

[NNadir]

19. Let's be clear on something. The costs of wind power are based on projections, not data.

The capital infrastructure is assumed to last 30 years.

If it doesn't well then, the costs are correspondingly higher.

If the wind industry is forced to contain its considerable waste forever, it's even worse. As it is, the wind industry is allowed to junk its waste in situ. There is NO requirement for land restoration.

There is almost no evidence that this projection is even remotely connected with reality.

Vestas got in financial trouble trying to honor 5 year warranties. That tells you all you need to know about the cost of wind power.