Pull my finger! The Department of Transport refuses to hand over 456 million bucks for a floating offshore wind turbine project!
Quit the turn up for the (steenking) books of the “net zero” tax fraudsters.
From here:
Feds Refuse to Fund Floating Offshore Wind Project in Maine | RealClearEnergy
“Dealing a stunning financial blow to a controversial renewable energy project off the New England Coast, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Oct. 21 rejected a grant application for $456 million to build offshore wind turbines and install them on floating platforms in the Gulf of Maine.”
That “RealClear” group is pretty hot on estimative reporting!
The Department of Transport(?) did not say why it turned down the application for the “grant”.
“Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg announced the awarding of more than $4.2 billion in grants for 44 green-energy projects nationwide. DOT officials did not say why the Maine project was not among the recipients.”
“Unlike traditional offshore wind installations, in which giant turbines are anchored to the ocean floor, the Maine project is designed to be a port, where turbines are to be assembled at what is essentially a boatyard. The turbines are then transported to and mounted on floating platforms at sea, where they are attached to the ocean floor by means of flexible anchors, chains, or steel cables.”
So, sort of like an offshore oil rig.
“The NREL study says communities likely to be impacted by development of a wind port will face “diverse environmental, health, educational, economic, and accessibility burdens that could impact how much they benefit from new or expanded ports and job opportunities …”
That finding was echoed by a recent Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) assessment of the Vinyard Wind Project off the coast of Massachusetts. BOEM concluded that a wind port upgrade would increase revenues and create some jobs but would lead to displacement or reduction of commercial and recreational fishing opportunities, potential harm to wildlife, increased vessel traffic and noise, visual impairment of the seaside scenery during daytime and nighttime hours, and disturbances of cultural resources.”
And here’s some pricing:
“For residential and commercial power customers in Maine, the proposed Sears Island project would result in higher utility bills. The current fixed-bottom offshore wind costs are $95 per megawatt hour as opposed to $145 per megawatt hour for floating wind turbines, according to Blackridge Research & Consulting. Both are intermittent, and the part-time energy they produce will never meet the demands of a full-time economy. “
I have still not received a reply from the
I sent the IEA this email o 20 September 2024. I got a swift response “what publication?” to which I replied “None”: Since then – nada,
“Reconciling Nat Gas Futures price”
“I am trying to reconcile the NG futures contract price with electricity prices paid by US households.
I see that US household electricity prices vary widely by State, but average around 16 dollars per kWh.
I see that the specification of an NG futures contract is written as 10,000 mmBTU here: https://www.cmegroup.com/markets/energy/natural-gas/natural-gas.contractSpecs.html?redirect=/trading/energy/nymex-natural-gas-futures.html
Using this converter here: https://www.inchcalculator.com/convert/million-btu-to-kilowatt-hour/ 10,000 mmBTU (10,000 mille mille BTU) = 10 billion BTU = 2,730,711 kWh.3 dollars divided by a million =
Which is around 3 million kWh.
I understand that gas fired power stations operate at around 33% efficiency, implying that just 1 million kWh produces electricity.
Is the apparent "raw material" cost per kWh equal to the futures contract price of around 3 dollars per contract across the strip curve divided by the 1 million kWh produced?
3 dollars divided by a million = 0.0003 cents (not dollars) per kWh,
This compares to electricity charged at 16 dollars per kWh charged to the average US household.
This seems anomalous and can be compared to the recent CFD auction price for offshore wind in the UK of £82 (around $100) per mWh = 10 cents per kWh.”
That’s if natural gas is used to generate electricity – maybe half of the energy content is lost.
This is energy loss does not occur when pumping natural gas directly into households, though other “frictional” energy loss may arise.
3 million kWh = 3,000 MWh – for three bucks v the wind turbine costs of between 95 and 145 bucks per MWh.
Talk about a rip-off! Price gouging by current power companies and ultra-super-duper price gouging by renewables!
Don’t forget this as well:
Onshore wind kills birds, bees, bats etc and uses up land that absorbs CO2 and grows food. Offshore wind destroys whales, dolphins, porpoises, sharks and fish – all are ugly, expensive, environmentally hostile and already obsolete.
I wonder why there is a dissonance between the rejection of this grant for floating offshore wind and yet three was blatant corruption and largesse a few days ago:
Quite the difference between the Department of Transport and EPA!
Onwards!!
Please take a (free or paid) subscription or forward this article to those you think might be interested. You can also donate via Ko-fi – any amount from three dollars upwards. Ko-fi donations here: https://ko-fi.com/peterhalligan