1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.AUDIO.OPINION

  • Off-shore Wind Industry collapsing

    From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jul 25 14:45:10 2023
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/companies-are-abandoning-massive-offshore-wind-projects-as-prices-skyrocket/ar-AA1eil7Y

    How bad is it?

    A subsidiary of Iberdrola SA, a Spanish renewables firm, canceled a contract that would have enabled the firm to sell energy produced by an offshore wind farm located off the Massachusetts coast, according to Bloomberg. The firm agreed to pay nearly $50
    million in fines to get out of the contract to sell offshore wind energy, asserting that inflation and rising interest rates no longer make the deal financially sensible, according to Recharge News.

    50 Million to get out. Sounds pretty bad.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Wed Jul 26 09:38:19 2023
    On 7/25/23 4:45 PM, ScottW wrote:
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/companies-are-abandoning-massive-offshore-wind-projects-as-prices-skyrocket/ar-AA1eil7Y

    How bad is it?

    A subsidiary of Iberdrola SA, a Spanish renewables firm, canceled a
    contract that would have enabled the firm to sell energy produced by
    an offshore wind farm located off the Massachusetts coast, according
    to Bloomberg. The firm agreed to pay nearly $50 million in fines to
    get out of the contract to sell offshore wind energy, asserting that inflation and rising interest rates no longer make the deal
    financially sensible, according to Recharge News.

    50 Million to get out. Sounds pretty bad.

    They locked themselves into supplying low cost power when they were
    awarded the contract.

    https://www.eenews.net/articles/one-company-could-sink-massachusetts-climate-goals/

    "Low-priced offshore wind power promised by Avangrid left it little room
    to absorb rising supply chain costs. That can be seen in the company’s
    second offshore wind project named Commonwealth Wind.

    When the Tufts researchers studied nine publicly available offshore wind contracts issued by states along the East Coast, including
    Massachusetts, they found that the average deal paid a mean price of $95
    per MWh over the life of its contract. Commonwealth Wind, by contrast,
    is due to receive an average price of $72 per MWh.?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jul 26 10:38:40 2023
    On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 7:38:22 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 7/25/23 4:45 PM, ScottW wrote:
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/companies-are-abandoning-massive-offshore-wind-projects-as-prices-skyrocket/ar-AA1eil7Y

    How bad is it?

    A subsidiary of Iberdrola SA, a Spanish renewables firm, canceled a contract that would have enabled the firm to sell energy produced by
    an offshore wind farm located off the Massachusetts coast, according
    to Bloomberg. The firm agreed to pay nearly $50 million in fines to
    get out of the contract to sell offshore wind energy, asserting that inflation and rising interest rates no longer make the deal
    financially sensible, according to Recharge News.

    50 Million to get out. Sounds pretty bad.
    They locked themselves into supplying low cost power when they were
    awarded the contract.

    Yeah....they f'd up. So did you claiming renewables are cheaper.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Wed Jul 26 13:36:06 2023
    On 7/26/23 12:38 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 7:38:22 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 7/25/23 4:45 PM, ScottW wrote:
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/companies-are-abandoning-massive-offshore-wind-projects-as-prices-skyrocket/ar-AA1eil7Y

    How bad is it?

    A subsidiary of Iberdrola SA, a Spanish renewables firm, canceled a
    contract that would have enabled the firm to sell energy produced by
    an offshore wind farm located off the Massachusetts coast, according
    to Bloomberg. The firm agreed to pay nearly $50 million in fines to
    get out of the contract to sell offshore wind energy, asserting that
    inflation and rising interest rates no longer make the deal
    financially sensible, according to Recharge News.

    50 Million to get out. Sounds pretty bad.
    They locked themselves into supplying low cost power when they were
    awarded the contract.

    Yeah....they f'd up. So did you claiming renewables are cheaper.

    Still are cheaper to build. Texas is 30% renewable these days and we
    know where the cheap natural gas is.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jul 27 21:11:50 2023
    On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 11:36:09 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 7/26/23 12:38 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 7:38:22 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 7/25/23 4:45 PM, ScottW wrote:
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/companies-are-abandoning-massive-offshore-wind-projects-as-prices-skyrocket/ar-AA1eil7Y

    How bad is it?

    A subsidiary of Iberdrola SA, a Spanish renewables firm, canceled a
    contract that would have enabled the firm to sell energy produced by
    an offshore wind farm located off the Massachusetts coast, according
    to Bloomberg. The firm agreed to pay nearly $50 million in fines to
    get out of the contract to sell offshore wind energy, asserting that
    inflation and rising interest rates no longer make the deal
    financially sensible, according to Recharge News.

    50 Million to get out. Sounds pretty bad.
    They locked themselves into supplying low cost power when they were
    awarded the contract.

    Yeah....they f'd up. So did you claiming renewables are cheaper.
    Still are cheaper to build. Texas is 30% renewable these days and we
    know where the cheap natural gas is.

    You maxed out. The cheap part is over.

    https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/2022/sep/energy.php

    "Wind and solar generators across the state have been asked by ERCOT to initiate curtailment — essentially, to reduce output below the maximum generation capacity when generation exceeds transmission capacity. Curtailment prevents transmission
    congestion caused by grid constraints and helps to avoid overloads.

    There are simply not enough transmission lines to move all the wind- and solar-generated electricity to the customers that need it.

    Transmission lines can take eight to 10 years to build and require significant capital investment."

    California had the unfortunate experience of not having transmission lines through the deserts and mountain passes for solar and wind.
    Most of the states transmission was concentrated on the coast and our genius dem gov't really spiked the cost by mandating a certain percent renewable
    by a set date creating a bidding war among energy producers for the few ready to install sites. It was insane. Remote mountain tops that happened to have a nearby transmission line went from 1$/acre to undisclosed thousands. It was the stupidest move
    ever and consumers will forever be paying a hefty price for it.

    But Texas is now face with a maxed out grid and needs major capital to install the necessary lines. That cost will ultimately be borne by consumers.
    And this is only to convert existing consumption to renewables. Add to that the cost of converting transportation to electricity and you'll be facing a huge capital investment that must be paid.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Fri Jul 28 07:21:35 2023
    On 7/27/23 11:11 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 11:36:09 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 7/26/23 12:38 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 7:38:22 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 7/25/23 4:45 PM, ScottW wrote:
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/companies-are-abandoning-massive-offshore-wind-projects-as-prices-skyrocket/ar-AA1eil7Y

    50 Million to get out. Sounds pretty bad.
    They locked themselves into supplying low cost power when they
    were awarded the contract.

    Yeah....they f'd up. So did you claiming renewables are cheaper.
    Still are cheaper to build. Texas is 30% renewable these days and
    we know where the cheap natural gas is.

    You maxed out. The cheap part is over.

    https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/2022/sep/energy.php

    "Wind and solar generators across the state have been asked by ERCOT
    to initiate curtailment — essentially, to reduce output below the
    maximum generation capacity when generation exceeds transmission
    capacity. Curtailment prevents transmission congestion caused by grid constraints and helps to avoid overloads.

    There are simply not enough transmission lines to move all the wind-
    and solar-generated electricity to the customers that need it.

    Transmission lines can take eight to 10 years to build and require significant capital investment."

    Yes, this is a known problem.

    https://energiesmagazine.com/article/the-iras-energy-provision-success-hinges-on-transmission-infrastructure/

    Unfortunately:

    https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/texas-republican-war-on-renewable-energy/

    https://www.texastribune.org/2023/05/25/texas-energy-renewables-natural-gas-grid-politics/

    You put a thumb on the scale, and it's easier to argue against.

    California had the unfortunate experience of not having transmission
    lines through the deserts and mountain passes for solar and wind.

    That's the "geographical" part.

    Most of the states transmission was concentrated on the coast and our
    genius dem gov't really spiked the cost by mandating a certain
    percent renewable by a set date creating a bidding war among energy
    producers for the few ready to install sites. It was insane. Remote mountain tops that happened to have a nearby transmission line went
    from 1$/acre to undisclosed thousands. It was the stupidest move
    ever and consumers will forever be paying a hefty price for it.

    Stupid free market.

    But Texas is now face with a maxed out grid and needs major capital
    to install the necessary lines. That cost will ultimately be borne
    by consumers. And this is only to convert existing consumption to
    renewables. Add to that the cost of converting transportation to
    electricity and you'll be facing a huge capital investment that must
    be paid.

    Well, there is a bunch of free money coming from Washington due to the IRA.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jul 28 08:53:49 2023
    On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 5:21:39 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 7/27/23 11:11 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 11:36:09 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 7/26/23 12:38 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 7:38:22 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 7/25/23 4:45 PM, ScottW wrote:
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/companies-are-abandoning-massive-offshore-wind-projects-as-prices-skyrocket/ar-AA1eil7Y
    50 Million to get out. Sounds pretty bad.
    They locked themselves into supplying low cost power when they
    were awarded the contract.

    Yeah....they f'd up. So did you claiming renewables are cheaper.
    Still are cheaper to build. Texas is 30% renewable these days and
    we know where the cheap natural gas is.

    You maxed out. The cheap part is over.

    https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/2022/sep/energy.php

    "Wind and solar generators across the state have been asked by ERCOT
    to initiate curtailment — essentially, to reduce output below the maximum generation capacity when generation exceeds transmission
    capacity. Curtailment prevents transmission congestion caused by grid constraints and helps to avoid overloads.

    There are simply not enough transmission lines to move all the wind-
    and solar-generated electricity to the customers that need it.

    Transmission lines can take eight to 10 years to build and require significant capital investment."
    Yes, this is a known problem.

    So you admit further increasing renewables in Tx is going to be grossly expensive and
    you're rates will headed to the 10X range I'm already paying.


    Most of the states transmission was concentrated on the coast and our genius dem gov't really spiked the cost by mandating a certain
    percent renewable by a set date creating a bidding war among energy producers for the few ready to install sites. It was insane. Remote mountain tops that happened to have a nearby transmission line went
    from 1$/acre to undisclosed thousands. It was the stupidest move
    ever and consumers will forever be paying a hefty price for it.
    Stupid free market.

    Mandates to supply are not a free market. How fuck'n moronic are you?

    Snip the equally moronic "free money" from Washington. I can only stomach so much stupidity in one post.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Fri Jul 28 12:27:49 2023
    On 7/28/23 10:53 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 5:21:39 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 7/27/23 11:11 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 11:36:09 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 7/26/23 12:38 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 7:38:22 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 7/25/23 4:45 PM, ScottW wrote:
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/companies-are-abandoning-massive-offshore-wind-projects-as-prices-skyrocket/ar-AA1eil7Y
    50 Million to get out. Sounds pretty bad.
    They locked themselves into supplying low cost power when they
    were awarded the contract.

    Yeah....they f'd up. So did you claiming renewables are cheaper.
    Still are cheaper to build. Texas is 30% renewable these days and
    we know where the cheap natural gas is.

    You maxed out. The cheap part is over.

    https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/2022/sep/energy.php

    "Wind and solar generators across the state have been asked by ERCOT
    to initiate curtailment — essentially, to reduce output below the
    maximum generation capacity when generation exceeds transmission
    capacity. Curtailment prevents transmission congestion caused by grid
    constraints and helps to avoid overloads.

    There are simply not enough transmission lines to move all the wind-
    and solar-generated electricity to the customers that need it.

    Transmission lines can take eight to 10 years to build and require
    significant capital investment."
    Yes, this is a known problem.

    So you admit further increasing renewables in Tx is going to be grossly expensive and
    you're rates will headed to the 10X range I'm already paying.

    No, I do not. So far Texas has more renewables and cheaper electricity.
    If the oil companies are doing a political dead cat bounce to make our
    lives worse by making the transition more difficult, that's on them.

    Most of the states transmission was concentrated on the coast and our
    genius dem gov't really spiked the cost by mandating a certain
    percent renewable by a set date creating a bidding war among energy
    producers for the few ready to install sites. It was insane. Remote
    mountain tops that happened to have a nearby transmission line went
    from 1$/acre to undisclosed thousands. It was the stupidest move
    ever and consumers will forever be paying a hefty price for it.
    Stupid free market.

    Mandates to supply are not a free market. How fuck'n moronic are you?

    Auctions with bids aren't a market?

    Snip the equally moronic "free money" from Washington. I can only stomach so much stupidity in one post.

    How about one news article?

    https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2023-04-06/californias-race-against-time-to-build-power-lines-boiling-point

    Here's the part you don't like:

    "Those new and upgraded power lines would be paid for largely by
    customers of the state’s major monopoly utility companies: Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric.
    The billions of dollars in expenditures would add to utility bills at a
    time when electricity costs are already rising rapidly, straining
    cash-strapped families and making it less likely that Californians will
    want to replace their fossil-fueled cars, furnaces and stoves with
    electric alternatives.

    Nobody said solving the climate crisis would be easy. But getting the
    ball rolling on new power lines has been especially tough. Hardly
    anybody wants to pay for them, even if they’ll save money — and lives — in the long run. And getting permission to string wires over long
    distances — with some routes traversing multiple states and hundreds of landowners — can take a decade or more."

    The market part:

    "Four of the most expensive transmission projects recommended by the
    system operator — with an estimated cost of more than $5 billion
    combined — will be put out for competitive bidding. That means rather
    than Edison, PG&E or SDG&E being awarded the lucrative projects by
    default, independent developers will have an opportunity to step in at a
    lower cost.

    ...Although competitive bidding could lower costs for some power lines,
    it won’t address a key reason other transmission projects are so
    expensive: guaranteed profit margins authorized by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which allow utilities such as Edison and PG&E to
    charge customers not only for the costs of building a line, but also a
    cut for their shareholders. Critics say the profits allowed by the
    agency are far too high, while utilities counter that they’re needed to reduce financial risks."





    Money's allocated. Time to spend it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)