Skip to main content

The Wind and the Tide

repower-5mw-wind-turbine Internet search engine giant Google announced Tuesday that it is investing in a mammoth project to build an underwater "superhighway for clean energy" that would be able to funnel power from offshore wind farms to 1.9 million homes without overtaxing the already congested mid-Atlantic power grid.

Why?

While the project is outside of Google's normal focus, officials said, "We believe in investing in projects that make good business sense and further the development of renewable energy."

Well, that makes enough sense as not to matter. If Google wants to do this, and its shareholders don’t raise objections, why not? It certainly has a good profile.

Some of what I’ve read raises questions, though not really about the utility of the project.

There’s this:

Consumers who would receive electricity through the grid would help fund the project, Mitchell added, although he said at this point, "It's hard to say what will be the impact on the consumer."

Mitchell is Bob Mitchell, chief executive of Trans-Elect, the electric transmission company that is taking the lead on the project. It sounds like CWIP, where consumers help pay for construction of a new plant. I assume this needs public utility commission support in the various states it will serve – I’m not sure this has happened yet.

There’s this interesting tidbit in the New York Times:

Yet even before any wind farms were built, the cable would channel existing supplies of electricity from southern Virginia, where it is cheap, to northern New Jersey, where it is costly, bypassing one of the most congested parts of the North American electric grid while lowering energy costs for northern customers.

That’s a net positive and it suggests where some money can be made by Google, Trans-Elect and their partners while the turbine work is done. But the very next paragraph suggests the countervailing force.

Generating electricity from offshore wind is far more expensive than relying on coal, natural gas or even onshore wind. But energy experts anticipate a growing demand for the offshore turbines to meet state requirements for greater reliance on local renewable energy as a clean alternative to fossil fuels.

So those who thought cap-and-trade an energy tax can now call this an energy tax, too. That’s a little snarky, but the truth is that any movement to renewable energy sources is going to imply a higher cost for electricity – whether it is government or industry that powers the move.

And that may be okay by many as long as the cost of electricity remains manageable and as long as carbon emission reduction as a desirable outcome doesn’t hit headwinds. We’ve seen a lot of politicians in the current election cycle deride global warming, which suggests that an interesting dynamic may emerge if they become a significant block of legislators.

And there’s this:

Now, apply those numbers [the cost of the Cape Wind project in Massachusetts] back to Google and Good Energies’ project. In order to produce 6,000 megawatts, they would need about 1,700 turbines, for a cost of over $32 billion. These are some sketchy numbers — nobody’s seriously proposed 1,700 turbines off the coast, nor is it clear where the extra $27 billion would come from.

I think these numbers are wildly overstated – this is a project where you cannot easily separate the turbines from the transmission – but I agree with writer Matthew Shaffer that numbers are flying around with only a vague sense of how to account for them. That may be the nature of a large project, but it will likely lead to some breathtaking financial obligations – for electricity vendors, state governments, consumers. Or maybe not – that Virginia to New Jersey connection noted above may allow for some impressive cost sharing over the span of the project.

None of this should be construed as objections or as a way to sow doubt over a wind project on a nuclear site. Quite the contrary – an infrastructure project this big raises innumerable questions that will find answers as it moves along, but that doesn’t mean it should be stopped or unnecessarily hindered.

There are many angles from which to compare this project to what a nuclear energy plant might offer in contrast. But let’s leave that aside this time. Instead, consider this post some initial scattered thoughts about a very interesting development and add your own thoughts – even if less scattered – in comments. After all, we’re all electricity buffs, aren’t we?

I’d never really seen a picture of erecting a turbine in the water, but it makes sense that it would include cranes on barges. Presumably there’s a community of divers to root them in place, too.

Comments

DocForesight said…
I can't help but wonder where the NEI gents get their information to stay abreast of "Global Climate Disruption" news and happenings.

It would appear, from some sources at least, that the wheels of the GCD bus are coming off, hubcaps and all.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …