California’s trillion dollars floating wind fantasy

[rangerrebew]

California’s trillion dollars floating wind fantasy
By
David Wojick
 
September 10th, 2024
 
California has adopted a target of 25,000 MW of floating offshore wind generation capacity. Of course, the cost is never mentioned, so here is a rough estimate to get the ball rolling.

The estimate begins with the huge Dominion Energy (DOM) fixed wind project currently under construction off of Virginia. Because the regulated utility DOM is its own developer, we get some public numbers, so here is a crude derivation. Big numbers are rounded for simplicity and ease of memory.

A. DOM says the 2,600 MW facility will cost $10 billion to build, which is about $4 billion/GW. But financing and profit bump that to $20 billion or $8 billion/GW, which is called the “revenue requirement” or what rate payers will pay. We will use that number.

https://www.cfact.org/2024/09/10/californias-trillion-dollars-floating-wind-fantasy/

[Hoodat]

Levelized Cost of Energy

- Land-based wind = $39/MWh

- Fixed bottom offshore wind = $95/MWh

- Floating offshore wind = $147/MWh

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/88335.pdf


The floating offshore wind that they are proposing is by far the most expensive form of electricity generation in use today.  It is 3½ times more costly than land-based wind.  And this is the loser that California voters are backing.

[catfish1957]

Has a state every been a Trillion Dollar in debt?

 

[Hoodat]

Has a state every been a Trillion Dollar in debt?

Illinois, if you count their state pension fund.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Cali opposes offshore oil, but is okay with offshore wind boondoggles?

De-carbonization is expensive nonsense, not only in dollar cost, but also in cost of lost opportunities and lost economically beneficial energy infrastructure investments.

[catfish1957]

We took an I-80 out west trip last year, and I was sickened by all the beautiful landscapes and vistas that were ruined by these wind turbine monstrosities.  So let me get this straight.....   The State of California which garners probably more tourism dollar per capita in the continental US wants to stick these up and down the coast?  Killing that scenery too?

Tell 'em Ron...

[berdie]

We took an I-80 out west trip last year, and I was sickened by all the beautiful landscapes and vistas that were ruined by these wind turbine monstrosities.  So let me get this straight.....   The State of California which garners probably more tourism dollar per capita in the continental US wants to stick these up and down the coast?  Killing that scenery too?

Tell 'em Ron...

It's been awhile since I've been to Cali, but that Hwy 10 drive is breathtaking. If they ruin that they are just stupid.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Levelized Cost of Energy

- Land-based wind = $39/MWh

- Fixed bottom offshore wind = $95/MWh

- Floating offshore wind = $147/MWh

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/88335.pdf


The floating offshore wind that they are proposing is by far the most expensive form of electricity generation in use today.  It is 3½ times more costly than land-based wind.  And this is the loser that California voters are backing.

And the cheapest formof power which they are destroying is hydroelectric, not to mention the nuclear plants shut down and the huge amount of natural gas the state possesses which is cheap cheap.

The state wants the most expensive while it refuses the less expensive.

Shows what type of nuts they are.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Here's how the monstrosity of offshore wind farms is creating more monstrosities. at more expense.
Wanna bet whether our tax $ will fund this new monstrosity?

Gigantic new aircraft design aims to create the largest plane ever to fly
By Maureen O'Hare
March 19, 2024
There’s a global energy crisis and onshore wind farms are a potential growth option. Larger wind turbines produce more power than standard ones, but the components are too big to be transported by road.

What’s the solution? A Colorado-based energy startup named Radia has an idea. It’s developing the biggest aircraft in aviation history.

Meet the WindRunner airplane, whose mission will be to deliver gigantic 300-foot-long blades directly to wind farms.

To help the world meet its decarbonization targets, it’ll use sustainable aviation fuel and needs only a simple packed-dirt or gravel runway to land on.

It’ll operate from regional hubs, says Radia, delivering where needed – and “can land on airstrips as short as 6,000 feet (1,800 meters), something no other large commercial aircraft can achieve.”

Let’s talk about specs, baby
When it comes to carrying the largest payloads ever moved by air, dainty just isn’t going to cut it.

So WindRunner will have a cargo bay volume of 272,000 cubic feet, enough to hold three Olympic swimming pools. That’s 12 times the volume of a Boeing 747-400 and – at 356 feet in length, it’s 127 feet longer too.

As for the wingspan, that’s 261 feet – imagine four bowling lanes laid end to end.

It will also dwarf the Antonov An-225, the heaviest aircraft ever built, which was destroyed at the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The aircraft’s scale might be groundbreaking, but the engineering is not – and that’s by design. Radia says it’s focusing “on existing technology and safety by using, where applicable, tried-and-true aviation materials, components and fabrication techniques that have FAA [US Federal Aviation Administration] approval, are already in mass production and are lowest-risk.”

The idea is to hit the ground running with a fast, well-built fleet that meets aerospace industry standards. Online reports say commercial operations as soon as 2027, but there’s no timeline confirmed on Radia’s website. CNN has reached out to the company for comment.
https://www.cnn.com/travel/windrunner-biggest-plane-in-the-world/index.html