backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 158 comment(s) - last by dever.. on Jun 27 at 1:07 PM

Delaware's windy coast is an ideal location for the new wind farm.  (Source: Bluewater Wind)

Bluewater Wind, which currently operates an offshore plant in Denmark is building a massive new $1.6B dollar wind farm off Delaware's coast.  (Source: Bluewater Wind)
In the quest to make wind power less obtrusive, some companies are deploying their products in creative new ways.

The push for wind power is gaining almost as much momentum as the solar power push.  The key challenge to wind power is location.  While some efforts, such as billionaire T. Boone Picken's new wind farm merely look to build on sparsely populated areas, others have looked to place mini windmills on buildings or elsewhere.

Now one Delaware utility company is fostering a bold new idea to solve wind power location complaints for sea-bordering states -- put the turbines off shore.  On Monday, Delmarva Power, a major Delaware utility, announced that it was entering into a contract with Bluewater Wind to produce the nation's first offshore wind farm.

According to Bluewater spokesman Jim Lanard, once installed there will be 150 turbines in total.  Cumulatively they will provide 16 percent of the utility's power output.  The turbines will be securely anchored dozens of miles off Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.

However, Bluewater isn't stopping there.  Delmarva will only use approximately half the projected generating capacity of the farm.  The remainder of the new wind farm's juice will be sold off to other utilities. 

The price tag on this incredible adventure is a cool $1.6B USD.

Construction will begin immediately pending regulatory inspection and approval.  This may become a lengthy process, though.  Bluewater is hoping to push it through as quickly as possible, as it hopes to have the plant operational within four years.

Bluewater has a 25-year contract with Delmarva, which is slated to begin in 2012.  Says Lanard, "[With the wind farm's power] Delmarva Power will be able to light about 50,000 homes a year, every year."

The benefits will be passed on to the consumer, says Lanard, who will be protected against instability in energy costs.  The wind power is sold at a locked in rate per kilowatt hour.

Bluewater brings to the table experience from its successful establishment of an offshore plant in Denmark.  At the Delaware plant, the turbines will rest in 75-feet deep water, and will rise 250 feet above the water line.  Hurricanes should be no problem for them as they are engineered to withstand the brunt of a hurricane.  Each turbine has three blades, 150 feet long a piece.

Only on extremely clear days will the park be visible from shore.  Vacationers travelling to Rehoboth Beach in the summer will rarely see the park.  Says Lanard, "If they can see them at all, the turbine blades would cover about the size of your thumbnail, and the poles would be about the width of a toothpick."

With a lot of excitement floating around this idea, it would not be surprising to see other green-centric states like California and Oregon jumping on the offshore wind-farm trend in coming years.  Bluewater also has pending proposals with utilities and government entities in New York, Rhode Island, and New Jersey as well.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
This is a losing venture
By rninneman on 6/24/2008 5:45:47 PM , Rating: 2
According to the DOE, the average Delaware household spends $80/month on electricity.

$80 x 12 months x 25 years x 50,000 households = $1.2 billion.

Last I checked, that is less than the $1.6 billion invested.

Let me guess, tax dollars will make up the rest.




RE: This is a losing venture
By danrien on 6/24/2008 5:54:33 PM , Rating: 4
you haven't factored in making that money back with less energy needing to generated via conventional oil, coal and gas methods. thus, long term, it should present some savings. also, in nd, the energy companies subsidize the wind farms by giving the customer an option to use "wind energy" for a few cents more a month, so it wouldn't have to be paid for via taxes.


RE: This is a losing venture
By rninneman on 6/24/2008 6:05:13 PM , Rating: 2
Huh? My calculation assumes the energy is completely free. No costs for maintenance etc. (Maybe that is factored in, I don't know because it doesn't specify.) I calculated gross revenue. So, assuming there are no other costs, that would require a 33% rate increase to break even. How happy do you think those DE residents will be when their $80 bill is suddenly over $106?


RE: This is a losing venture
By Oregonian2 on 6/24/2008 6:17:43 PM , Rating: 2
How much do the windmills cost the second year of operation?


RE: This is a losing venture
By hadifa on 6/24/2008 7:13:37 PM , Rating: 4
Second year doesn't count!

By second year it will be under water due to global warming :-(


RE: This is a losing venture
By Carter642 on 6/24/2008 7:19:59 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, the turbines float.

Deleware will be under 50ft of ocean and the wind turbines will be laughing at their former masters.


RE: This is a losing venture
By phxfreddy on 6/24/2008 10:31:23 PM , Rating: 2
Yes coastal liberals take the global warming challenge.....sell me your coastal land that is soon to be underwater for 10% current market value! ... 10% is better than nothing which is what you will get when its underwater!


RE: This is a losing venture
By freaqie on 6/25/2008 4:29:07 AM , Rating: 4
"According to the DOE, the average Delaware household spends $80/month on electricity.

$80 x 12 months x 25 years x 50,000 households = $1.2 billion.

Last I checked, that is less than the $1.6 billion invested.

Let me guess, tax dollars will make up the rest. "

i guess inflation would do the rest. also rising oil prces will drive costs of normal power up.
so green power's prices can rise too,
so in ten years an average house could be sppending 120.
and in 20 years 160 dollars a year.
and if so this farm would make a profit


RE: This is a losing venture
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/25/2008 12:59:07 PM , Rating: 2
well if they did not float... then you have a jacuzzi type of effect....very therapeutic

It's seems like a good idea as long as they don't block shipping, though I'd try for more the 50,000 homes.


RE: This is a losing venture
By ionoxx on 6/25/2008 1:18:00 PM , Rating: 3
Morbo: WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOOD NIGHT!


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/25/2008 1:57:00 PM , Rating: 2
I know one that does....


RE: This is a losing venture
By 67STANG on 6/24/2008 6:57:53 PM , Rating: 2
There is a power-to-cost ratio with this as there are with many things. Offshore turbine installation and maintenance is much more expensive than a land-based installation. These smaller turbines aren't worth it IMHO. I would rather see a few rather large turbines that put out a lot more power.

Clipper Windpower is installing a prototype 7.5MW turbine offshore of the UK and each 1 of these things puts out the smae power as 3 pretty large turbines. Installation and initial cost will be cheaper as there's only 1 to install instead of 3, and maintence will should be reduced too.

What we all have to remember as well is that you don't always get your cake and eat it too as far as cost is concerned. This is renewable engergy, there's more to consider than just monetary matters.


RE: This is a losing venture
By masher2 (blog) on 6/24/2008 7:01:37 PM , Rating: 4
> "What we all have to remember as well is that you don't always get your cake and eat it too as far as cost is concerned"

With nuclear power, you do. A new nuclear reactor in the state would generate far more power, and at a per Kw-h rate more than ten times cheaper than this boondoggle.


RE: This is a losing venture
By augiem on 6/24/2008 8:04:42 PM , Rating: 1
Yay for nuclear fusion! Someday...


RE: This is a losing venture
By BladeVenom on 6/24/2008 8:26:57 PM , Rating: 5
He's talking about fission, and there are already hundreds of them operating successfully today.


RE: This is a losing venture
By 67STANG on 6/24/2008 11:05:06 PM , Rating: 2
Considering each reactor costs at least $6 billion dollars to construct, the price difference isn't as drastic as most would think.

Along with that, until they can effectively reprocess the spent fuel, you're going to have permitting problems with the government...

Another issue is each plant requires ~9,000,000 gallons of water per day for full operation. I suppose unless you built all the plants in Iowa, you'd have a problem. What? Too soon?


RE: This is a losing venture
By masher2 (blog) on 6/24/2008 11:17:34 PM , Rating: 2
> "Considering each reactor costs at least $6 billion dollars to construct, the price difference isn't as drastic as most would think"

It is when a reactor can easily generate 2,000 MWatts or more-- and do so 90% or more of the time. Whereas this wind farm will only generate 200 MWatts, and at a 30% AF, will actually produce only about 1/30 the total amount of power.

As for the water issue, saltwater can be as easily used for cooling as fresh...and since we're talking about a coastal installation, water isn't an issue at all.

Furthermore, nuclear plants built in areas where water shortages exist use closed-loop designs, meaning they recycle the water back through after each cooling cycle. This cuts their water usage down to a tiny fraction of what would otherwise be required. Open-loop designs are only used where water consumption isn't a problem.


RE: This is a losing venture
By 67STANG on 6/25/2008 4:07:43 PM , Rating: 2
Strange... most single reactors I've read about are 600MW to 900MW.

Conversely, you could use 800 2.5MW turbines to reach your 2,000MW number. At around $1.2 Million a pop, you're looking at $960 Million. Double that number for installation, land leases and maintenance and you've got $1.92 Billion.

Your 1/30th output number isn't accurate. Wind mapping and surveying prior to installation along with technological advances in turbine design and technology mean today's turbines need very little wind speed to get to their rated output. I've watched many installation site's SCADA systems and have observed this first hand. At just 11MPH all the 2.5MW turbines I observed were putting out 2.5MW-2.7MW.

So for 1/3 the price of a single reactor nuclear power plant that will put out ~600MW to ~900MW you have a CLEAN, RENEWABLE energy source.

I'm all for Nuclear Power expansion, but I think it's only PART of the puzzle. Wind, Solar and Geothermal should expand as well.


RE: This is a losing venture
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2008 4:32:33 PM , Rating: 3
> "Strange... most single reactors I've read about are 600MW to 900MW."

No one builds reactors that small any more. NRG's Texas expansion has two reactors, each rated at 1300MW. Japan's Kashi-Kari plant has 7 reactors, generating a total of 8,200 MW.

> "At just 11MPH all the 2.5MW turbines I observed were putting out 2.5MW-2.7MW"

You'll find few spots anywhere on the planet with a continual 11MPH breeze.

In any case, I find your figures very questionable. I think it's much more likely you read a meters/sec figure and thought it was displaying miles/hour. GE's commercial 2.% MW wind turbines don't reach full output until 29 MPH (which is close to 11 m/s):

http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/wind_tur...

> "Your 1/30th output number isn't accurate"

I have yet to see a commercial wind site with an AF over 50%....35% is typical. If you want to dispute this, post actual statistics from operating sites.


RE: This is a losing venture
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2008 4:39:32 PM , Rating: 2
Edit: GE's commercial 2.5 MW turbines don't reach full output till 29 MPH.


RE: This is a losing venture
By 67STANG on 6/25/2008 11:38:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No one builds reactors that small any more. NRG's Texas expansion has two reactors, each rated at 1300MW. Japan's Kashi-Kari plant has 7 reactors, generating a total of 8,200 MW.


Even if each reactor is rated ~1300MW, you are talking about multi-reactors each costing $6,000,000,000.00.

That puts the NRG plant at $10,000,000,000.00 for 2,600MW. You can buy quite a few wind turbines for that much money...

quote:
GE's commercial 2.% MW wind turbines don't reach full output until 29 MPH (which is close to 11 m/s):


GE's commercial turbines are of a much older design. There's quite a bit to be said for blade design and even more importantly: generator design.

quote:
I have yet to see a commercial wind site with an AF over 50%....35% is typical. If you want to dispute this, post actual statistics from operating sites.


AF is the "do not exceed customer expectations" percentile. 30% is a failsafe. Depending on the location I've seen a month-to-month averages of over 60%. Obviously I cannot post proprietary information for any company I consult for. I don't want to get canned...


RE: This is a losing venture
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2008 9:35:07 AM , Rating: 5
> "Even if each reactor is rated ~1300MW, you are talking about multi-reactors each costing $6,000,000,000.00"

I'm sorry, but you're wrong again. NRG's $6B expansion is for two reactors...that's $3B each.

> "GE's commercial turbines are of a much older design"

If you want to claim performance figures wildly above the rest of the industry, post a spec sheet as I did. Until then, its an unsubstantiated claim.

> "Obviously I cannot post proprietary information for any company I consult for"

Nice try, but operating records for utilities are a matter of public record. And I seriously disbelieve some private company is operating a massive windfarm at an operational level twice what any utility manages.


RE: This is a losing venture
By jbartabas on 6/25/2008 5:45:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is when a reactor can easily generate 2,000 MWatts or more-- and do so 90% or more of the time. Whereas this wind farm will only generate 200 MWatts, and at a 30% AF, will actually produce only about 1/30 the total amount of power.


Delmarva Power agreed to buy as much as 200 megawatts at any given time , I believe the rated peak capacity of the wind farm is 450 MW (at ~30% Capacity Factor, that would put it at ~ 150 MW on average).
That does not change radically your figures, but if one can be accurate it's always better.


RE: This is a losing venture
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2008 6:01:56 PM , Rating: 2
> "That does not change radically your figures, but if one can be accurate it's always better"

It shouldn't change them at all, as its my understanding, the $1.6B deal covers only the deal between Delmarva and Bluewater. In other words, the cost of the entire project is roughly double that...and -- this is the part that so upset Delmarva-- if Bluewater isn't able to find a buyer for the other half, the utility is on the hook for it as well.


RE: This is a losing venture
By jbartabas on 6/25/2008 6:29:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It shouldn't change them at all, as its my understanding, the $1.6B deal covers only the deal between Delmarva and Bluewater.


I was quoting your power ratio figures (not the cost). The capacity factor of 30% applies to the rated capacity of 450 MW, not the max power that Delmarva agreed to buy. So it is not a ratio of 1/30, but more ~1/13.

As for the cost, I am not sure your understanding is correct: the contract is of $800M between Delmarva and Bluewater. For that price, Delmarva only pays for up to 70 turbines, and an average of about 605,000 megawatt hours a year. The cost of $1.6B applies to the whole farm (provided other investors come in), and its 450 MW rating (i.e. 150 MW average effective power).


RE: This is a losing venture
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2008 6:34:05 PM , Rating: 2
> "the contract is of $800M between Delmarva and Bluewater. ...The cost of $1.6B applies to the whole farm"

This story has it a bit differently:
quote:
and the Senate is waiting to act on a resolution passed by the House that would order Delmarva to sign a 25-year, $1.5 billion deal committing it to buy as much as 300 megawatts an hour of wind power from Bluewater
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articl...


RE: This is a losing venture
By jbartabas on 6/25/2008 6:42:35 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently that was the "old" project (although your link wasn't "that" old), where Delmarva was buying up to 300MW.

From the same source, today's article:
quote:
Monday's $800 million, 25-year contract is for a wind farm planned a dozen miles offshore of Rehoboth Beach. [...] Delmarva would buy no more than 200 megawatts of power at any given time, down from 300.


Source: http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articl...


RE: This is a losing venture
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2008 8:57:18 PM , Rating: 2
Fair enough...I stand corrected.


RE: This is a losing venture
By andrinoaa on 6/26/2008 8:46:50 AM , Rating: 2
Yes only $6billion to build and hundreds of years to contain the waste. When you add that cost, "nuclar" ain't so grand no more.
You still haven't produced costings on storage for hundreds of years masher2. Us skeptics are still waiting. lol


RE: This is a losing venture
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2008 9:36:11 AM , Rating: 4
> " When you add that cost, "nuclar" ain't so grand no more."

Well, it's still 13 times cheaper than the cost of a similar size windfarm I call that pretty grand.


RE: This is a losing venture
By snownpaint on 6/26/2008 1:28:24 PM , Rating: 1
IMO....

I like windfarms in the ocean idea.. If done right it can generate electricity and help prevent beach erosion. Plus it doesn't eat up limited and valuable land (maybe on top of landfills as well).. If you wanted to add tidal energy devices to them, power to the people. However, Nuclear is better for the mass production of electricity. Lets not forget that new-gen nuclear reactors can make cheap H2. Which, if done right, can make our jets fly with reduced hydrocarbons. If gas prices still run high, airlines Will Flop, no matter how much help they get from Gov't. I'm all about the perfected battery and electric cars.. Once you feel the G's a electric car pulls, you won't be able to think the same about combustion cars again.. Finally, I would like to see everybody taking the big sun catching roofs of their houses and have solarcell and thermal transfers put on top.. The Sun produces more energy in a second then we use in a year. There is tons of wasted space looking at the sun all over the US, this can be used to heat your house and/or run your AC.. 20ft x 40ft roof, 27million homes = 21,600,000,000 sq/ft of solar catching power.


RE: This is a losing venture
By smitty3268 on 6/25/2008 12:06:53 AM , Rating: 4
Let's not try and make nuclear power something it isn't. It may be the best form of power generation we have now, but calling it perfect is being as shortsighted as those who think this wind farm will solve Delaware's energy needs.


RE: This is a losing venture
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2008 12:11:40 AM , Rating: 2
> "It may be the best form of power generation we have now, but calling it perfect is being as shortsighted "

I don't recall using the word "perfect" in my post. Until we have mass-produced fully aneutronic fusion plants the size of a lawnmower engine, I don't think any power source can be called perfect.


RE: This is a losing venture
By dever on 6/25/2008 1:33:20 PM , Rating: 1
So, how many people died from the radiation of the worst nucelar accident in history (Chernobyl)?

Even though it had aging, bad reactor design, and a communist country that tried to cover it up instead of evacuating people, there are less than 60 known deaths from radiation.

This includes those who worked on the roof directly above the remnants of reactor 4, cleaning off debris in "protective suits" that you could make from pieces of your garden shed and a pair of tin-snips.

Also, the only known illness documented to have significantly increased was thyroid cancer. There were 4000 diagnosed cases of citizens in that area during these last 20 years, which was significantly above the normal rate for that area. However, many of those cases may not have been known in a normal population because the severity was low, and because of the accident there was testing of nearly 100% of the population.

Was this bad? Yes, it was horrible. But it wasn't nearly as bad as most assume. The current levels of background radiation near Chernobyl are lower than the natural background radiation in many populated areas of the world.

Just interesting info. Nuclear is not perfect, but it's far preferable than the dire reports we're constantly fed.

(I got much of this info from a BBC Horizon report, and ran it across a nuclear engineer for validity... not that you should take my word for it.)


RE: This is a losing venture
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2008 1:39:15 PM , Rating: 3
The information is correct. To it I'd add that the Cherobyl design (RBMK) was one the Western world rejected as too dangerous back in the 1950s...none were ever built ouside the Soviet sphere.

Also, the people who developed cancer in the Cherobyl region, could have been saved had the government simply distributed cheap potassium iodide pills to the populace, and conducted an orderly evacuation -- there were people still fishing in Chernobyl's cooling pond three days after the accident.


RE: This is a losing venture
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/25/2008 2:19:04 PM , Rating: 2
they were looking for the 3 eyed fish....

The wild life has come back to Cherobyl. Lots of trees, birds, deer, and other animals. So, I would think the area can not be to bad. Not that I'd volunteer to live there.


RE: This is a losing venture
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2008 2:34:28 PM , Rating: 2
A few people do live there. In fact, some people never left at all. The only real safety issue remaining is food cultivated within the exclusion zone, as it can theoretically concentrate certain radionuclies...though even this could be addressed by bioremediation, just there's no real need to do so, when the soil will finish cleaning itself up over the next couple decades.


RE: This is a losing venture
By andrinoaa on 6/26/2008 8:53:28 AM , Rating: 2
last scientific literature I read on the subject said there was NO safe level of radiation. Sorry mashe2 but I draw the line at your white washing of a MAJOR MAJOR disaster. The reality is we don't know how many people will ultimately get cancer from the radiation. And I for one will not countenance your flipant attitude to those poor miserable sufferers. JUST ONE DEATH is one too many. Why have you got such a callus attitude?


RE: This is a losing venture
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2008 9:43:58 AM , Rating: 3
> "last scientific literature I read on the subject said there was NO safe level of radiation"

Then you're doomed already, because you receive large doses each day, from everything from cosmic rays to dental visits to even (gasp!) the food you eat. Bananas are so naturally radioactive they regularly set off the radiation monitors at US ports...and the granite used to build places like Grand Central Station makes the building significantly more radioactive than that allowed for nuclear plants.

Furthermore, just the decision to move from a low-lying state like Florida to a high-lying one like Colorado means you'll get a radiation dose ten times *larger* than what the average Ukranian received from Chernobyl. Even a single cross-country flight results in a significant radiation dose, due to cosmic rays from the higher altitude.

I won't even get into the radiation levels that conservation of electricity has caused, by creating fully airtight homes from which radon cannot escape.

The average American is going to receive much more from these natural sources than they will from a nuclear reactor-- even if they live right beside one. So much for your scaremongering.

> " JUST ONE DEATH is one too many"

Then you better give up on wind and solar power, because both have killed people in the Western world.

Nuclear, however, has not.


RE: This is a losing venture
By Hoser McMoose on 6/25/2008 11:48:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even though [Chernobyl] had aging, bad reactor design, and a communist country that tried to cover it up instead of evacuating people, there are less than 60 known deaths from radiation.

60 known deaths that can be easily attributed, estimated at about 4000 deaths total over the course of 100 years following the disaster (as per a rather large U.N. study a few years back).

Thyroid cancer was the only type of cancer that saw a (VERY) large increase, but the incidents of leukaemia also seem to be up and they are where the other estimated 3940 deaths are from.

Beyond that there might be another 1,000 or so people killed in all other aspects of nuclear power, predominantly from uranium mining (mining just about any metal, uranium included, is dangerous and uses tons of toxic chemicals and has serious environmental effects).

For comparison, roughly 40 people have been killed by wind power. Mostly they have been technicians working on the turbines. Ironically if you compare fatalities to amount of power produced nuclear power and wind power are pretty much equally "safe" or "dangerous".

For further comparison, somewhere around 300,000 to 500,000 people have died from hydro dam failures in the last 50 years while worldwide anywhere from 100,000 to 1,000,000 people die EVERY YEAR from pollution from coal power.


RE: This is a losing venture
By dever on 6/27/2008 1:07:59 PM , Rating: 2
You might want to check your facts on this. Admittedly, I got these numbers from a recent BBC documentary (see link at bottom)... but the data show NO measurable increase in leukemia. As I said, the only measurable increase in any illness was thyroid cancer... and less than 60 deaths have occurred as a result of radiation.

I'm not trying to white wash this, I was just very shocked by the amount of hype we've been fed. Obviously, the science is still fairly new, and paranoia runs rampant.

The worst part of the tradgedy in my mind is the fact that mother's were "encouraged" to abort their children... resulting in (if I remember correctly) around 200k abortions. Again, no measurable increase in birth defects were recorded either. Given the nature of the Russian government, I'm not sure what "encouraged" actually means.

Here's a link. Read up for yourself. The media feeds us catastrophe stories because it's easy and it sells.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5173310....


RE: This is a losing venture
By monkeyman1140 on 6/26/2008 10:42:43 AM , Rating: 2
Nuclear power seems like a great idea until you figure in costs to get rid of the high level radioactive waste, then you have to factor costs to get rid of the low level radioactive waste, which is a much more difficult prospect. Getting rid of millions of gallons of radioactive water has become such a big problem that many sites still store the stuff onsite because there's no place to put it. Then of course the high level waste has to be stored in pools until permanently buried in some mountain somewhere. If any of those pools drain, or the A/C system for the storage unit goes down for too long, you end up with a radioactive disaster the size of chernobyl.
Then there's terrorism....yes McCain's 45 new nuclear plants will be fat juice targets for muslims wanting to make a name for themselves in praise of Allah.
Lastly, the amount of nuclear fuel on the planet is FINITE....yes uranium isn't endless folks, and weapons production pales in comparison to power generation when it comes to gobbling up the limited uranium resources.
Did I forget the heat pollution? yes you have to put a nuclear power plant next to a river, and it spits out boiling water which kills fish and pretty much everything else downstream for miles.
Smell that cleeeean power!


RE: This is a losing venture
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2008 1:50:10 PM , Rating: 3
> "yes McCain's 45 new nuclear plants will be fat juice targets for muslims wanting to make a name for themselves in praise of Allah"

Do you have any idea how tough the containment dome on a nuclear plant is? Even if one slams a fully-loaded jet into one, you're not going to crack it. (tests have been done to verify just that). The most a terrorist group can do to a nuclear reactor is shut it down.

> "Lastly, the amount of nuclear fuel on the planet is FINITE"

We have enough uranium for several thousand years of use...and once that's gone, we can start on thorium, which is just as easy to fission and over three times as prevalent. When you have enough fuel to last several times longer than all of recorded human history, its essentially infinite in practical terms.


RE: This is a losing venture
By Spuke on 6/24/2008 7:03:14 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
This is renewable engergy, there's more to consider than just monetary matters.
Like what?


RE: This is a losing venture
By phxfreddy on 6/24/2008 10:35:02 PM , Rating: 2
You need to consider that when I as an environmentalist say it is good well there must be a halo glowing around the wind turbine. When ever you say it... well you are just an enviro-religion heretic and there is a black glow around the nuclear plants you suggest!

Kafirs!, unbelievers!, enviro-heathens! .... My Lord Jim Hansen will have you all clapped in irons soon!


RE: This is a losing venture
By 67STANG on 6/24/2008 10:58:46 PM , Rating: 2
Like the fact that anything renewable offsets the cost of oil, coal and gas-- since we'll be using less. Not to mention it's better for the environment....


RE: This is a losing venture
By Ringold on 6/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: This is a losing venture
By Ringold on 6/25/2008 4:12:50 AM , Rating: 2
For whoever rated me down, I'll point out that last year American's gave a record amount of money -- though it tapered off towards the end of the year as the news networks started pounding fear of a depression that never came in to the public mind.

Americans are generous people, with the poorest state happening to be the most generous (Mississippi is it?). Government and environmentalists shouldn't lie in order to soak them for even more pet causes.


RE: This is a losing venture
By psychmike on 6/25/2008 2:00:53 PM , Rating: 2
I wholeheartedly agree with you re the generosity of Americans. As your Canadian neighbour, I absolutely salute how much America has spearheaded development in the rest of the world and also promoted ideas of democracy and human rights.

My concern is not within American citizens or culture, it's with corporations in general. They do wonderful things in terms of promoting innovation and developing efficiency, but their aims are not always the same as the aims of a good society. A good society is not defined by profits, it is defined by the opportunities it provides to people. A good society if not defined by consumption, it is defined by charity, compassion, and fairness. To the extent that good government requires good fiscal sense, we should heed economic policy as good policy, but we should remember that money is a means to a good life and not a good life in and of itself.

It isn't just environmental technology that gets government subsidies, mainsteam energy has been getting them for a long time. Car dealerships and manufacturers supported suburban developments so that people would have to drive between home and work instead of walking or taking transit. The auto industry and petro industries place enormous costs on society that can be considered subsidies. We build and maintain roads, deal with respiratory illnesses, and suffer accidents because we think driving 20-100km a day is normal. We get part of that back in gasoline taxes but it is still a cost that all of us pay.

You may be against 'charity' for clean technology but we pay to keep things the way they are too. I didn't have asthma until I hit my mid-20s and no one else in my family has it. I'd pay a $1,000 year subsidy for clean power if I could run outside instead of having to hit the gym because of smog alerts that happen for most of the summer here in Toronto because we are incredibly wasteful of energy here and rely on diesel and coal electrical generation to deal with ridiulously high AC usage.

Mike


RE: This is a losing venture
By Spuke on 6/25/2008 3:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
Great post! I wouldn't bother responding to most of the people here if they presented a reasonable and accepting nature. With people like yourself, I can simply disagree and go on about my life. With others here, I am the devil incarnate if I don't do EXACTLY as they say and do RIGHT NOW! I'm just a nobody so this may not matter much but thank you for your post.


RE: This is a losing venture
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2008 4:06:29 PM , Rating: 3
> "I'd pay a $1,000 year subsidy for clean power if I could run outside instead of having to hit the gym because of smog alerts that happen for most of the summer here in Toronto "

I agree. The sad thing is, had environmentalists not achieved a de facto shutdown of the budding nuclear power industry in the 1970s, you wouldn't be breathing those coal-fired emissions today.


RE: This is a losing venture
By psychmike on 6/25/2008 4:55:42 PM , Rating: 2
That's why I tend to piss people off on both sides of the arguement. I'm all for development of clean technology but I don't see nuclear energy as evil. It's an imperfect technology with many strengths and should be part of an energy solution but isn't a pancea. Reduced consumption, co-generation, hydro, wind, titdal, and solar can all work together to build a high-capacity, redundant, robust, system.

Mike


RE: This is a losing venture
By Spuke on 6/25/2008 11:43:43 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
In the end, if it doesn't make financial sense, it's charity.
If utility companies, the federal government or state governments want to engage in charity -- okay. I for one would just prefer they not try to sugar coat it by pretending its financially wise, however. Then the voters, or in the case of utility companies, shareholders, can decide if they wish to be so charitable or not.
QFT.


RE: This is a losing venture
By dever on 6/25/2008 1:37:48 PM , Rating: 1
I would call it "reverse" charity... the beneficiaries of which are the billionaires that build these wind farms... and the contributors are the average working stiffs.


RE: This is a losing venture
By Ashrac on 6/24/2008 6:00:57 PM , Rating: 2
They are only using half of the power generated. The other half is being sold off to utility companies. Now it's hard to figure out from the article if this is a joint venture between Delaware power and the turbine company which is sort of the way the wording makes it sound, which means that the project cost wouldn't be absorbed 100% by either company.

Regardless of the price tag, I doubt that they overlooked profit margins in considering this project.


RE: This is a losing venture
By phxfreddy on 6/24/2008 10:38:51 PM , Rating: 1
The problem is that while it may be profitable....when it comes to supplying us all with energy it appears there is no way to get there from here with wind turbines. They are all so green that they are totally gay but what about my energy bill? Are they going to generate enough to keep it from going up?

I think not!

We need to drill like crazy off of the coasts or we risk economic collapse due to shipping too many dollars out of the country for oil.

The oil market lacks any elasticity right now. It needs a few million barrels per day excess capacity to keep it from going any higher. And yes it will do that. That is why its called the OIL FUTURES MARKET.


RE: This is a losing venture
By mikefarinha on 6/24/2008 6:13:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let me guess, tax dollars will make up the rest.


I don't think so... It looks like you missed this part of TFA.

quote:
However, Bluewater isn't stopping there. Delmarva will only use approximately half the projected generating capacity of the farm. The remainder of the new wind farm's juice will be sold off to other utilities.


Hopefully $0 of tax payers money goes into this project since it looks like it will be plenty profitable.


RE: This is a losing venture
By masher2 (blog) on 6/24/2008 7:03:40 PM , Rating: 2
> "Hopefully $0 of tax payers money goes into this project "

Unfortunately that's not the case. Bluewater is receiving the usual federal subsidies for wind power, and the rest of the additional cost will be borne by Delmarva ratepayers, who'll have the exhorbitant costs of this energy amortized across all the electricity generated across the state.


RE: This is a losing venture
By Spuke on 6/24/2008 7:04:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Hopefully $0 of tax payers money goes into this project since it looks like it will be plenty profitable.
How does it "look" profitable? Explain.


RE: This is a losing venture
By Spuke on 6/25/2008 11:48:59 AM , Rating: 2
Rate it down all you want but he said NOTHING to back up his statement. Since he didn't explain then I'll assume he's just pulling info out of his a$$. Anyone can spew info. Is it true or is it not? Popular doesn't make it automatically true. Unpopular doesn't make it automatically false. You can also believe what you want but that doesn't make it true either.

I want him to explain. If he can't do that, then, at best, he's spreading misinformation. At worst, he's a liar.


RE: This is a losing venture
By jbartabas on 6/24/2008 6:14:29 PM , Rating: 2
From the source, "Story Highlights":

# Estimated cost of offshore wind turbine project is $1.6 billion
# Power company will use half of energy to light about 50,000 homes a year
# Rest of power will be sold to other customers


RE: This is a losing venture
By Keeir on 6/24/2008 6:36:21 PM , Rating: 2
Fair enough

Taking the PVA of average of 100 dollars a month (higher than 80 dollars current) * 100,000 households or 10 million a month * 12 months or 120 million a year for 25 years

PV(A)=A/i*(1-1/((1+i)^n))

where i is the rate of return required over a year. Since a significant portion of the 1.6 billion will be financed with investments, a rate of return of .04 (4%) seems very generous

PV(A)=120/.04*(1-1/((1.04)^25))=1874 (million)

A rate of return of .08 (8%) would be more reasonable so there is money left over for maintainence etc..

PV(A)=120/.08*(1-1/((1.08)^25))=1280 (million)

A rate of return of .12 (12%) is really what most businesses would be considering

PV(A)=120/.12*(1-1/((1.12)^25))=941 (million)

Based on this admittedly simple and inaccurate calculation, it seems clear that some kind of public money in terms of tax breaks, incentives or out and out "grants" are being used to make the investment worthwhile. Most real business require at least 10% rate of return, with most looking towards 15%+. Given that the calculation above shows significant negative present value (above around 5% projected rate of returns) and doesn't factor in any additional costs of delivering power to customers, its fair to wonder when and how much the usage of this wind farm will take from delaware energy consumers pockets. (Though since externalities of pollution, regardless of the actual chemicals you consider pollution, are no longer present it may -still- be a good value)


RE: This is a losing venture
By Ringold on 6/25/2008 2:31:51 AM , Rating: 2
If more people did the analysis they might see what a crock a lot of this is.

http://www.powermag.com/ExportedSite/BlogArticles/...

That was looking at Boone Picken's "investment" (really, more of a guide to how a billionaire can use liberal environmental guilt to make additional billions from tax payers) but the same subsidies likely apply.


RE: This is a losing venture
By rikulus on 6/25/2008 8:54:13 AM , Rating: 2
So, based on your own numbers, they will make a rate of return of 6%, which already is far from "in the red." Some other things to consider:

- They will gain experience constructing offshore windmills, potentially helping to reduce future construction costs (this isn't exactly a fully matured method in this country.)

- Your numbers assume the average household power bill will remain at $100 per month for then next 25 years... and you seem to suggest this is a conservative estimate. If we started at an $80 per month bill today and assumed even 4% inflation (which I think will be very conservative in today's energy market... I know my heating oil cost is going from $2.60 last year to $4.75 per gallon this year alone), the monthly bill will be up to $213 per month in 25 years.

- And if people are going to complain about this project getting tax subsidies... can anyone name a single energy endeavor in this country that doesn't get government funding in some way to either keep costs artificially low or help get off the ground?


RE: This is a losing venture
By rikulus on 6/25/2008 8:57:18 AM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah, and do we know that the design lifespan of these windmills is 25 years?


RE: This is a losing venture
By masher2 (blog) on 6/25/2008 9:32:18 AM , Rating: 3
> "can anyone name a single energy endeavor in this country that doesn't get government funding in some way"

NRG's construction of pair of new nuclear reactors in Texas isn't getting any tax dollars. By the way, that facility will generate over 30 times as much energy as this windfarm, yet only cost less than four times as much. Maintenance costs will be lower also.

> "So, based on your own numbers, they will make a rate of return of 6%, which already is far from "in the red"

No. The project will generate only a tiny fraction of Delaware's total energy, yet is pricey enough to raise the power bill of every single customer in the state by some $60/year over and above what they'd pay for power from a conventional source.

Power that costs ten times as much as normal market rates isn't a "winning proposition", no matter how you slice it.


RE: This is a losing venture
By Hoser McMoose on 6/26/2008 12:08:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
NRG's construction of pair of new nuclear reactors in Texas isn't getting any tax dollars.

I don't know the specifics of NRG's reactor, but the Energy Policy Act of 2005 contains SEVERAL provision that will see tax dollars given to most, if not all, new nuclear reactors.

It also throws tax dollars at coal, wind, solar, oil, ethanol and damn near anything else you care to think of.

The original poster is correct, virtually EVERY major energy project gets government funding in some way, it's just a question of how many tax dollars are being tossed around.


RE: This is a losing venture
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2008 1:54:26 PM , Rating: 2
The only thing I know of in the 2005 act are some loan guarantees for energy production which doesn't generate greenhouse gases, which would theoretically include nuclear. However, there's a vast difference between a loan guarantee and an outright subsidy, which is what wind power is currently receiving.


RE: This is a losing venture
By Keeir on 6/26/2008 3:13:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So, based on your own numbers, they will make a rate of return of 6%, which already is far from "in the red." Some other things to consider:


No, based on my own numbers, they have the maximum possible potential to make 6% if the energy can be delivered without maintaince costs OR delivery costs . In fact, based on the actual bid material, this farm will be cost around around 12.5 cents per kilowatt hour for wholesale pricing. Expect to pay around 15.8 cents per kilowatt hour- best case senario- if you were going to purchase this power. Oh, add in like 4-5 cents per kilowatt hour subsidy that is typically given to wind farms...making the -best case senario- (consumer) price around 20 cents per kilowatt hour. As Masher has noted below with his source, Delmara believes the worst case senario is closer to 45 cents per kilowatt hour or even greater. Most land based wind farms operate closer to 15-20 cents per kilowatt hour currently (end consumer costs after subsidies and typically delivery costs).

quote:
Your numbers assume the average household power bill will remain at $100 per month for then next 25 years


This is actually to remove inflation from the question. I assumed that energy costs would raise faster than inflation ($100 as opposed to $80) and looked at the post inflation real rate of return. Please remember that most of the 1.7 billion (up to 3.2 billion by the companies own proposal) will be financed at rates singificantly higher than 4%.

Sorry, from even a basic economic analysis, this project has economic idiocy written all over it. Delmara is especially critical of the deal and seems pretty worried that the way the bid was written last year, this windfarm can raise power rates- with no limit- and Delmara is on the hook contractually. This is the sweetheart portion that is allowing this project to go through. (I mean, most real business projects often have IRR of 20%! or more based on the simple calculation I used)


RE: This is a losing venture
By jbartabas on 6/26/2008 3:55:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is actually to remove inflation from the question. I assumed that energy costs would raise faster than inflation ($100 as opposed to $80) and looked at the post inflation real rate of return. Please remember that most of the 1.7 billion (up to 3.2 billion by the companies own proposal) will be financed at rates singificantly higher than 4%.


Well, I don't necessarily want to go in all the details of your analysis and I am definitely willing to assume it is correct. However you would gain much credibility if you would start it with accurate numbers.

The cost for powering on average 50,000 households (i.e. an average of 64 MW of power) is $800M.

The average bill of DE household was already $110.18 in 2006 (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/table... There is no way you have even started to account for energy costs inflation.


RE: This is a losing venture
By Keeir on 6/26/2008 9:55:47 PM , Rating: 2
It pretty much spelled out right here

http://www.delmarva.com/_res/documents/staffreport...

Page 15 is pretty much revealing. In 2007 dollars, an Independent commission under Delmara estimated thier "wholesale" electrical rates under bluewater's proposal at 115 dollars per MWh at best and rising to 288 dollars per MWh at worst. With a value around 190 dollars being the most likely outcome.

Per DOE, the average Wholesale price of electricity in Pennsylvania Hub (probably the likely source of Delaware capcity) was around 72 dollars per MWh.

Note that Bluewater proposal and Delmara's IC analysis assumes the continuation of current subsidies.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pd...

Which amount to approx 23 dollars per MWh in 2007. Pg 16

Essentially, The market cost in 2007 for electricity was 72 dollars per MWh with an average subsidy of around 2 dollars per MWh costing for a total of 74 dollars per MWh. This wind facility is offering to provide the same power at between 138 dollars and 311 dollars respectively for MWh. A cost premium of 200% to 420%.

My earlier calculations were back of the evelope calucations which when a decsion is economically sound usually show significant rates of return. Since my calculation did not, it was clear that significant additional funds will be needed (or risk adverted) that were just not mentioed in the story. The significant additional funds/risk lowering are being provided by the US government in subsidies and in the "cost plus" nature of bluewater's contract. Regardless of the final price of the energy, Delmara will be forced to purchase at least the contractual amount and upto 100%. Essentially, bluewater is garenteeded a profit -no matter- how well they build, design, maintain, etc thier site at the expense of Delmara's customers.


RE: This is a losing venture
By Keeir on 6/26/2008 9:57:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Per DOE, the average Wholesale price of electricity in Pennsylvania Hub (probably the likely source of Delaware capcity) was around 72 dollars per MWh.
Add "In 2007"


RE: This is a losing venture
By jbartabas on 6/26/2008 10:58:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It pretty much spelled out right here http://www.delmarva.com/_res/documents/staffreport... [...]


That's the conditions for the old contract.
Do you have a link to the final agreement?

According to Delmarva:
quote:
Under this 25-year agreement, Bluewater Wind, the state-selected offshore wind provider, could begin delivering electricity to Delmarva Power’s Delaware customers around the year 2012. Delmarva Power’s customers would buy about half the amount of electricity at a lower overall price per megawatt-hour, as compared to the previous offer.


Source: http://www.delmarva.com/welcome/news/releases/arch...

Details welcome.


RE: This is a losing venture
By stepone on 6/24/2008 7:12:31 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're missing the point a bit here...

Wind farms produce a clean & inexhaustable supply of electricity as opposed to coal or oil fired power stations which are the heaviest polluters & require constant fuel supplies.

Sure there will of course be maintenance costs over the years but are those going to be as much as the cost of x thousands of tonnes of coal a power plant would use?

In either case it's not about providing initially cheaper electricity it's about providing cleaner more sustainable energy sources.

(PS we also need more nuclear power)


RE: This is a losing venture
By masher2 (blog) on 6/24/2008 7:25:41 PM , Rating: 1
> "Wind farms produce a clean & inexhaustable supply of electricity "

Less clean than nuclear power, when all things are considered.. Windmills require vast amounts of resources of construct and maintain...I once saw an estimate that said 1/3 of the world's steel would be required just to build enough turbines to power the US alone.


RE: This is a losing venture
By mcmilljb on 6/25/2008 1:20:11 AM , Rating: 2
Well if this project takes a lot of steel, I'm buying stock in whoever provides their steel. That company should get a nice boost if this project takes off. You can't reason with some people so just make money off of it and go on.


RE: This is a losing venture
By Hoser McMoose on 6/26/2008 12:19:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Less clean than nuclear power, when all things are considered

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate, or at the very least it would be extremely difficult to estimate.

Nuclear is not without it's environmental impacts. Nuke reactors also require a LOT of steel (and other metals) to build the things, as well as lots of concrete. They also require uranium ore to be mined which involves the use of toxic chemicals that end up in tailing ponds, not to mention the use of energy (mostly diesel fuel). Then there are the energy requirements for dealing with the nuclear waste and decommissioning the reactors. None of these are huge issues on their own, but each and every one has their own environmental impact.

There is no such thing as truly 'green' power. The type of power generation with the lowest environmental impact is, in my opinion at least, run-of-the-river (ie no dam) hydro power. However even this has some environmental impacts.


RE: This is a losing venture
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2008 1:58:46 PM , Rating: 2
> "Nuke reactors also require a LOT of steel (and other metals) to build the things"

In comparison to wind power, it's a small fraction, as many independent analysis have confirmed. By some estimates, it would take up to 1/3 the entire world's steel production just to build windmills to power the United States alone.

Wind and solar power are incredibly diffuse. Concentrating that power requires vast amounts of land...and vast amounts of resources to cover that land with either windmills or solar panels.

If you doubt this, just look at the cost of this $1.6B project, just to generate a paltry few hundred MW. If they're not spending that money on steel, copper, concrete, and other materials, what are they spending it on? A windmill is a fairly simple beast, even a large 2.5 MW turbine. There aren't a lot of research costs to amortize out.


RE: This is a losing venture
By Jim28 on 6/25/2008 11:46:22 AM , Rating: 2
It is not exactly clear that wind is green/clean energy at all. To me it is smoke and mirrors for a power source with wind's power output, land requirements, and availability.
Especially, wind farms in the ocean.

Maintenance costs and transportation depend heavily on oil products. Ships like to drink diesel alot you know, and you ain't walking to these turbines to fix them! What about when a hurricane wrecks these things like toys? I know they are engineered with hurricanes in mind, but I am betting on the hurricane!

Steel is not green either, it takes alot of electical power and a lot of coal coke to manufacture. Has all of this been taken into account in a enviromentalists dream world?

Solar Panels aren't all that green at all.
PV panels are a semiconducter based product, and that is the most expensive material we can make in terms of resources and power required for manufacture.


RE: This is a losing venture
By Dmitheon on 6/24/2008 9:17:20 PM , Rating: 2
You're assuming that energy costs remain constant for the next 25 years.


RE: This is a losing venture
By joex444 on 6/25/2008 1:41:47 AM , Rating: 2
No, wrong.

He is assuming that the market value of wind power is the same as present day fossil or nuclear power.


RE: This is a losing venture
By psychmike on 6/24/2008 10:43:10 PM , Rating: 2
At least here in Canada, household costs for electricity are relatively low because they are heavily subsidized by the government. In addition to the direct subsidy, the government also subsidizes corporations building large scale power generation projects. Thus it may well cost a lot more to produce electricity than the tally paid in electric bills.

Also, keep in mind that dirty power generation simply externalizes its costs to other areas. A coal powered plant may produce electricity relatively cheaply but they're not picking up the tab for mercury pollution and resulting neurological deficits in infants or paying for health costs for those with asthma. A nuclear power plant may be really cheap to run but it's extraordinarily expensive to build and even more so to dismantle and (at least here) taxpayers pay for that on top of the normal electricity bill.

Economics makes sense when true costs are included and when people have perfect information but that most certainly is not what's happening with power generation. You seem to suggest that taxpayers picking up the bill for wind power is a poor idea but odds are it's happening now with the status quo.

Mike