Obama boosts Mid-Atlantic offshore wind-farm plans

...with natural gas quickly approaching a 1 handle ($1.xx in T Boone Pickens lingo) even on-shore wind needs subsidy to compete. Off-shore wind and nuclear really need a stretch of the imagination.

The rationale in the video is we are behind our competitors in Europe and we must catch up and rebuild America. But Europe does not have a near 1 handle on natural gas, for one thing.

 

...natural gas is so cheap right now it is way cheapest I believe.
If you ever go up the NJ Turnpike there is a 750 MW ultra-clean NG plant right on the road around Exit 9/10, if you blink you miss it so small. So it flunks the test of highest job creation. If we need an inter-state transmisson line in the ocean, I guess they can still do that with nat gas. The thing is, electricity is not really free-market, the states agree to charge rate payers to keep the projects profitable.

 

is natural gas exploration, development, production and distribution subsidized in any way? what are the environmental ramifications?

 

Wind turbines off Houston stuck me as not necessarily a good idea, in terms of hurricane risk. Mid-Atlantic may be better, but certainly not risk free.

Seems attention is being paid to making them 'tough enough', so we'll find out the answer later.

 

Some of the subsidies written for oil also work for natural gas. ghg and limited supply are part of any fossil fuel. There is additional pollution in getting the natural gas.

That seems like someone was cooking the books. The fuel for wind is cheaper than coal which is cheaper than natural gas. But if you are building a plant and applying its costs natural gas is the cheapest, then coal, then on-shore wind, then off shore wind. Since fuel prices are highly variable these things change.

It seems like people in the mid atlantic would be willing to pay more for wind One problem has been federal red tape, texas because i controls more of water doesn't need to jump through federal hoops. Its good they are streamlining the regulations on the east coast.

It sounds like the offshore texas wind may cost around 8 cents per kwh, plus costs to get it to the grid. This is expensive but coincides more with demand than west texas on-shore wind. If texas is going to get to 30% wind, then having 3%-5% offshore makes a lot of sense. People are willing to pay extra for wind, and the state is deregulated. If the sources of wind are averaged its not too much more than paying for coal

 

Unfort the exploration and production boom is already pretty far along in the Northeast, mostly at private industry expense as far as I know. Nat Gas price is falling off the radar screen. I would say in some ways, nat gas is less subsidized or less favored because many states always liked it less than coal nukes now wind, for political/money reasons.

 

Recently read about the hurricane hazard to wind turbines.Huge added risk.Just keeping the things standing is a costly feat in Europe where there are no hurricanes.
I gather Europe is having second thoughts about their wind programs.They aren't cost effective as they require a fossil fuel plant to run as backup for when the wind isn't blowing.They are saying it produces as much CO2 than just using a fossil fuel plant and costs much more.

 

There are two costs that can make wind expensive:
- installation
- transmission lines

I believe that for off-shore it's generally installation that's expensive. I'd hope that existing projects have helped bring costs down, but I've read that equipment is still bespoke. The transmission lines cost but they're often sited relatively near large cities that have consumption higher enough to take the load.

For on-shore it's the transmission lines that can be expensive. For the flatlanders in the Midwest I'm sure it's less of a problem than when turbines are in small groups on forested hills in a low-density state where nimbys like their forested hills. In many cases the grid holds back the wind: Texas has gradually improved infrastructure and so improved utilization; Kansas' distribution sucks so much that the wind power in the East can't even go to the hills in the west.

 

Hey I got a dog in this fight as Dominion Power is one of the players. Sierra Club spokesman on radio today says it is important that Virgina support the project, else we fall behind Maryland (gimme a break). Also VA would not take part in the oodles of jobs to be created. Price of project was said to be 2x normal electric sources (5x Nat Gas in my mind).

 

LOL Cyclo in your personal case, I assure you Maryland's gain is Virginia's loss. I believe Virginia's Dominion power is on board with the project but trying to minimize ratepayers risks if the project hits snags. I'm moving to PA if this project goes forward, assuming I can pass the PA IQ test.