The Raleigh News & Observer ran this article about the possibility of offshore wind power.
Some developer from Pinehurst wants to build an offshore wind farm about 25 miles off the NC coast. It would be a 200 MW wind power plant all along the coast. There could be as many as 150 wind turbines with heights as tall as 465 feet (or about the height of 46-story buildings).
Let me mention and address several points:
1) From the article: “Plans call eventually for tripling the size of
the wind farm to at least 150 towers over 54 square miles — an area
nearly the size of Fayetteville — if demand for the electricity
increases.” This would be equal to 34,560 acres to produce very little electricity (see analysis of electricity generation below).
2) The Utilities Commission’s own consultant explained that this type of offshore wind power wasn’t feasible.
3) The article mentions a UNC report and states “It [The report] also said the cost of an offshore wind farm would be comparable to that of a nuclear plant.”
This is beyond misleading. The average nuclear power plant’s installed capacity is about 1,540 MW (or about 8 times greater than this proposed massive wind farm).
Nuclear power plants have a capacity factor of about 92%. This means that when we look at the total possible amount of MWh that could have been produced by a nuclear power plant over a year, it will produce 92% of that amount. This is the highest capacity factor among all energy sources.
Wind power, on the other hand, operates at a ridiculously low capacity factor. To be really generous, the capacity factor would be about 35%.
In terms of actual electricity production, the average nuclear power plant generates about 12.4 million MWh. This massive proposed wind farm would generate about 613,000 MWh.
The average nuclear power plant would generate about 20 times more electricity than this massive wind power plant. It is absurd to compare the prices of plants, as UNC did, given how much more electricity is produced by a nuclear power plant.
We need to look at cost per MWh. The Energy Information Administration (EIA), as shown in this Spotlight, estimates the total levelized costs of new advanced nuclear plants and offshore wind plants. New advanced nuclear would be $107.3 per MWh (or 10.73 cents per KWh). Offshore wind would be $229.6 per MWh (or 22.96 cents per KWh). Offshore wind is more than double the cost of nuclear power, and this is using unrealistically low estimates.
These numbers don’t take into consideration the costs associated with back-up electricity generation that is required for wind power. It also is unclear whether EIA took into account the unusually high transmission costs that would be associated with an offshore wind farm so far from the coast.
BTW: Offshore wind, according to EIA data, is about 62% more expensive than on-shore wind.
4) This passage from the article really gets to me: “A 2007 state law, which requires electric utilities to tap renewable
energy, limits how much utilities can spend on green power and requires
some energy to come from solar power and swine and poultry waste. The
limits leave little for giant wind farms, said James McLawhorn,
director of the Electric Division of state consumer advocacy agency
Public Staff.”
The law mandates that “green energy” be purchased–it otherwise wouldn’t be purchased due to its high costs and unreliability. The limits exist so consumers don’t have to spend even more for these costly sources of energy than they already do.
The special carve-outs for solar and biomass (swine and poultry) are tiny–granted, they shouldn’t exist. However, there’s a lot of room for giant wind farms. What Mr. McLawhorn is really saying is that the costs for such a wind farm are going to be too high given the cost caps, and the article suggests that he thinks this is a bad thing. He also is suggesting that utilities won’t be able to meet the mandates without reaching the cost caps first.
In case you haven’t caught my criticism of the Public Staff, this is the state agency that allegedly is fighting for electricity consumers. As is typical of the Public Staff, they are pushing for policies that drive up costs for consumers and want us to rely on sources of electricity that are unreliable.
To the Public Staff: Are you suggesting that the cost caps should be eliminated? Can you explain how an offshore wind farm would in any way benefit consumers? Do you realize that environmental groups don’t need a state agency to do its work for them? Do you realize you are a consumer advocate, not an arm of Environmental Defense?
