2022 was an abnormal year though. In 2022, the UK spent about £63 billion on crude oil, petrol, diesel, and other oil-based fuels, with another £49 billion spent on buying gas. The rest was spent on imports of coal and electricity - making a total of £117 billion. In 2021, £54 billion was spent on energy imports, with £48 billion spent in 2019.
@@kenlydon1395 It's probably the result of who he's been talking to. Most, if not all, European languages typically use the word 'energy' when talking about electricity production.
I was told by a offshore gas worker in Taranaki that offshore wind will be good for his company, good for regional and national economy but super bad for the environment. His reason was the crane ship that comes from Norway to do maintenance is polluting. Then he proceeds to tell me the same ship is used by the fossil gas industry in Taranaki. This is otherwise a very smart person that has been programmed by the industry he works in, programmed to believe crazy.
Wood it be inappropriate to suggest he might have been ‘gaslit’ I have also spent time in oil n’ gas in Taranaki and it’s a common & understandable blindness amongst people with a vested interest in the status quo..
@@electricAB agreed, if by understandable you mean disgusting.. i am somehow thinking that those claims like _salary depends on his not understanding it._ just normalize that disgusting behaviour.. am i wrong?
It is actually really amazing when I, here in Perth, explain to people how well Solar and Wind Anti-collorate, you see it click for people that have just not thought about it before.
Well the bad news is they don't anti correlate enough and even a few times matters. So lets say there are 30 days a year (its actually more) where Wind is low at night. The problem is you need enough backup to cater for those nights and the NEM (East Coast not WA) runs between 20 & 30GW on average so at night you can get Supply Gaps that are 15-18GW deep and in Winter last over 12 hours ie A shortfall over night of 100+ GW's.
Rethink-x has an excellent study on how to meet demand using wind, solar and batteries. Essentially you overbuild wind and solar so the amount of battery storage need is greatly reduced. By building 3-4 times your energy needs, the number of days where there isn’t enough solar or wind goes down dramatically. The few days where there still isn’t enough energy, you have battery storage for those periods. They show that this system will also be the lowest cost in 2030.
Batteries are getting cheaper with projections being they'll reach $50/kwh in the next 5-7 years. Nothing can beat producing your own electricity and storing it for using it at night.
@@kylekleman That is just way more expensive than a gas generator, let alone the waste of overbuilding. Maybe that would be viable with hydrogen or methane production from the excess production, but the batteries need to be used to make it economically viable. The other hidden cost is the load management. It gets exponentially more expensive when you reduce the amount of base production and replace it with variable production. Basically the low production days will become so expensive that it is economically viable to install the needed battery power while during sunny/windy times energy will be free or hold a negative price.
@@TimMountjoy-zy2fd With battery prices coming down so much, and manufacturing of them ramping up so much, I can see battery energy storage facilities playing a role here to smooth out the lulls in production when the wind is not blowing and the sun isn't shining.
Great video Rosie! Especially happy with your explanation of why offshore wind seems so popular despite its higher LCOE as reported in Lazard. The cute boat-Rosie animation was also great!
Glad you liked that part, that was the main reason I made the video. I am constantly trying to explain that point in my regular job, thought making a video I could refer people to would be less repetitive!
Well she Lied via omission. Where there is wind, there is no naval industrial presence anywhere else in the world outside of the North Sea due to presence of Oil and Gas naval assets for construction. This an gargantuan cost which is NOT tabulated. Best offshore in the world would be down around Patagonia... Guess what NO ONE is trying to build down in the HIGH wind sea zones of Patagonia which are FAR superior to ANY other region of the world other than Antartica? Wind Turbines is what. Also, no other region(edit I think Argentina Patagonia has some, but I forget their depth) of the world has shallow seas and High winds like the North Sea which automatically incrases cost by a presumed ~50% over that of shallow sea bases, so her stated 2X more expensive is an absurd joke anywhere not named NORTH SEA. Anywhere else we are looking at 3X-->4X cost of on land. Wind also must be present with copious quanties of NG. Other than North America, no one else has copious quantities of NG to balance the fickle nature of wind. Wind is a Northern Europe/Plains of USA and a couple other geographic regions rare phenomena(Mongolia, S. Africa, for instance or Patagonia) with maybe East Africa. E. Africa with the PErsian gulf close ~enough and its NG might work. China is via its Mongolian wind is hoping they can tap their very large hydro network, but even then their Capacity factor for their wind sits at ~24% via their own claims and this is with modern wind turbines. Europe/USA have ~34% capacity factor, but lots of OLD inefficient HAWT's and all their new installations usually hit 50% capacity factor using near identical turbines as the ones put up in inner Mongolia of China just as an example.
It's a cute little boat, but as a sailor - it looks like it's sailing backwards! It looks like the artist copied the outlines of sails from a number of photos and combined them in a way that makes no sense and results in an 'uncanny valley' effect.
@@w8stral I think you missed the point about being close to cities in small or densely populated countries with limited space for onshore wind. Patagonia and Antarctica have few or no cities, and plenty of space for onshore wind. I'll wager they never develop their offshore wind resources, however vast they are. Your point is well made that the North Sea has been the first place for offshore wind to gain popularity largely due to its established oil and gas engineering industry, with capital equipment in place and experienced workers. The same applies to the Gulf coast of Texas but there has been no offshore wind boom there because there IS plenty of space on land in Texas, and the wind boom has been onshore. Gas is certainly useful for offsetting the variability of wind generation, but so are solar and hydro. Gas is not a necessity, it's just the incumbent. For now.
Uh, no, YOU miss the point, when NG is a SMALL fraction of the cost, why would ANYONE with a brain cell put in Wind Turbines? LCOE cost analysis NEVER adds in grid stability, making it a giant lie when you compare to begin with. Vast majority of the world has near Zero wind power potential. Wind potential is exceptional in its Geographically specificity. Same is true of solar. @@JonathanMaddox
That's an impressively information-dense 16 minutes. Thanks for a comprehensive summary delivered in a thoroughly balanced manner. You are becoming a national, if not global treasure :-)
True. An international resource, given that you started out with videos created in Denmark when you were working there. I still remember your one where you made a working wind generator out of cake. 😊
Never points to the bad side such as propeller coating with sea spray, damage to the marine/mammal life world wide and the number of whales beached since these wonderful 300 mtr towers were forced into the sea bed.
An interesting and informative video by someone who is obviously enthusiastic about wind turbines as a source of electricity. There are, however, some blind spots that result from that enthusiasm and being embedded in the industry. Here are just a few. 1. It is an iron law of electricity generation that the lower the energy density of the source, the greater the material intensity. The quantity of steel, copper, rare earths, etc., is very, very high. In fact, if we generated our energy needs from wind turbines, we would probably cook the earth in the steel and cement construction and poison the planet with the toxic wastes that come from the production and dismantling of wind turbines. There is also the much higher demand for copper. 2. That leads to the second major issue. The absence of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of any of the so-called renewable energy sources. There are ISO Guidelines for LCAs and the reason no LCAs have been done that include environmental, social and economic costs is that the myth of so-called renewable energy sources being a panacea to our ecological overshoot and our carbon and toxicity colonialism will be exposed. 3. Whilst addressing the issue of greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation is addressed in a small way by wind turbines and solar PVs, many more serious environmental, toxicity and social problems are generated. 4. How do wind turbines help to address the issues raised by earth system scientists (read planetary boundaries, six of nine having now been crossed and all indicators are that things are only getting worse, driven, in part, by the mindless rush to so-called renewables. 5. Renewables is a misnomer. Wind turbines and Solar PVs are replaceable energy harvesting machines. 6. We are already dealing with a massive global plastics problem and the end of life disposal of wind turbine blades is only going to exacerbate that problem. 7. The IPAT identity notes that the environmental impact of humanity, I, is a product of population, P, affluence, A, and technology, T. Until we address issues of affluence (read demand for energy and resources/materials in the form of goods and products) and technology, we are not going to make matters better globally. 8. Earth Overshoot Day is in July this year. For Australia, where I live, it is in a March. We simply can’t keep consuming the planet the way we are doing at the moment. Many have been saying this for decades and things have only gotten worse. Read William R. Catton’s classic 1980 book, OVERSHOOT. then read Christopher Clugston’s latest book, INDUSTIALISM: OUR COMMITMENT TO IMPEMANENCE. And then ask why the neo-classical econ9mic paradigm which is fundamentally flawed still holds sway when better approaches such as ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS offer a more reality based approach. In summary, it is time to break out of th3 narrow engineering paradigm and produce some videos that are reality based fro every creatures on earth, including the thousands killed every year by wind turbine blades (that creatures include bats, birds, insects). A frustrated and retired electrical engineer and academic.
In 2018, they decommissioned a Nuclear Power station near where I live. It was first up and running in 1969. So, almost fifty years for that power plant. Wind turbines finally pay for their prodigious costs after 25 years. However, land based units might last 18 years. Offshore, I would believe their life span would be significantly less. How is this cost effective?
A balanced explanation of the pros and cons, opportunities or setbacks or challenges, logistics, inflation, economy, comparative energy pricing and demand cycles, geographic conditions and adaptations, population density, environmental concerns.
I was literally on a repair job in a north sea wind farm between the UK and Netherlands because a trawler damaged one of the subsea power cables. It took 7 weeks to complete the repair. Our vessel was $100,000 per day and burned 20 cubes of heavy fuel oil per day. We also had a mass flow excavator come in on another vessel at the end of the job to bury the repaired cable omega loop. Multi million pound repair all because of one trawler who's trawl doors caught a cable that had came out of burial.
Thanks Rosie. I really appreciate such a thorough explanation by someone who really knows what they are talking about, and cites sources of information. As a retired Aerodynamicist, I have a reasonable understanding of the physical generation of power from wind, and with long experience of stability augmentation of flight control, the automatic control of a turbine and generator is also well understood. But the civil engineering, economic, oceanic, and weather spects that you brought out are real eye-openers to me.
She does not know what she is talking about, she is ignoring the nuclear option. Wind is not a 'renewable' energy considering the cost to repair and replace.
Neither can I, but probably not for the same reasons! Floating wind is incredibly expensive just to build, but 2 of the 3 projects so far have failed from a reliability perspective, I’ll use US$. There have been 3 commercial wind farms, Hywind Scotland, Kincardine (Aberdeen Scotland) and Hywind Tampen in Norway to supply their oil and gas rigs, LOL. H Scotland cost $10.97 billion per GW, it was established in 2017 and all the turbines are being towed back to Norway for a euphemistic ‘heavy maintenance’; a mere 7 years and the turbines are stuffed. Kincardine cost $8.9 B per GW, was commissioned in 2021 and had at least one turbine towed back to Rotterdam in 2023 for ‘maintainace’. H Tampen cost $8.49 B per GW and given it’s just been finished it’s too early to say how soon it will be till those turbines fail also. Bear in mind that those astronomical construction and maintain costs are for assets that only generate 54% of their rated capacity. To put that in perspective, nuclear power in S Korea has a 96% capacity factor.
LCOE is inferior to total system cost calculations. Solar and wind complementing each other, on average, does not negate reserve requirements (there's still too many times when both are providing low output). Batteries are not sufficient either given that they're typically only able to provide for 4 to 6 hours. Hence LCOE is fine if your renewable penetration is relatively low (< 20% of installed capacity). But once penetration gets really high... 40%+, additional integration costs go exponential, and LCOE doesn't account for that.
...worth pointing out, 50GW's of offshore wind at 32% efficiency factor is about 145TWh's/annum. Current UK domestic electrical consumption is around 98TWh's/annum, but that's relying on around 80-85% gas and oil heating to homes. The only way we'll get 26 million homes (plus a million extra the government is saying they'll build) to run on 145TWh's/annum will be by either leaving all homes running on gas/oil, or by upgrading all existing homes (around 22 million) to current new dwelling building regulations standard with heat pumps running at an average COP of 3... to do this by 2030? That's upgrading 3.6 million homes per year, and installing 3.6 million heat pumps per year (last year we installed 36,000 according to Carbon Brief)... and then also worth pointing out that the electricity will be generated throughout the year whereas the lions share will be needed for winter heating, so you'll be needing to store 72.5TWh of the wind energy generated by the 50GW's generators for up to six months for winter heating. At current storage costs per KWh... that's kind of insane.
Off course the actual output of the wind is higher in the winter. While the solar is greater in the summer. So you do have seasonal balancing. Pumped hydro is good addition to this mix. Using current costs for anything in this transformational process is meaningless with traditional cost learning curves clearly in play.
@@colinpalmer9070 apologies, but if you're under the impression that cost curves are going to bring the price of energy storage down sufficiently to avoid the trillions of pounds needed to do the job, then I'd say I'm impressed by your optimism. Also I do this for a living.
There is a system called biorock reefs, basically uses a very low voltage current that causes calcium to precipitate out of the seawater and form a layer of minerals on rebar that is basically food that supercharges the growth of corals and shellfish. I've been obsessed with the idea of that being deployed on the underside of offshore wind turbines so that offshore wind farms also become massive biodiversity hotspots full of coral reefs.
These pilons after some years in operation get cleaned to prevent exactly that growth to occur, as that would increase shear. To avoid increasing risks of failure, those pilons would need to be a lot heavier, and more expensive. The anti-scouring protection at the base can serve as building blocks for ecosystems, and if you choose materials wisely, they may over time counter the harmful acidification process that results from the absorption of CO2 from the air into the sea.
Depends what the structure is, I think; and also the strength of the local ocean currents. The main shear stress would seem to be too come from the wind on the turbine, which is a huge force multiplied by a massive distance, this making a huge overturning moment. In contrast the water forces are probably lower, and certainly close to the base, leading to a lower overturning moment. But I'm a physicist, not a wind power engineer, and is love to see Rosie's view on this. It's alreaydy possible that i may be mistaken. (AM i allowed to say that in a you tube comment?) I remember reading that oil rigs add to bio diversity by being a place for various things to grow.
Rosie, that was an exceptionally clear overview of all the issues involved in offshore wind. Thank you! 👏👏I’m looking forward to your episode on floating offshore wind!
Anything on the environmental impact? During construction? Long term? Impact on migratory and resident birds? Impact on sea floor ecology? Fish populations? Anything on pollution (mining, CO2 emission) associated with production and maintenance?
I can’t help thinking that some of the reason that the offshore projects failed was just because they wanted a slice of the pie of the higher electricity prices.
It (recent abandonment of some offshore projects) was mostly a result of inflation surge, and supply issues for materials. The projected costs assumed that the trend line of decreasing prices for offshore wind would continue, which did not occur ... so substantial cost overruns loomed menacingly.
You are utterly incorrect. The Wind Turbine and Solar electrical generation is EXTREMALLY expensive. Depending on the exact place (affects the cost of construction) and the origin of the product (cost of the product) this multiple varies between 4.5 - 6.5 times. And it means that your government has no choice, but increase taxation on YOU, in order to pay for this "renewable" electricity.
@@arney444 That is not true at all. Onshore wind is objectively the cheapest form of energy generation. Please do look into it. Also do the maths. I just bought a share of an onshore wind farm, it cost £2000 for my share and that percentage will generate about 3000kWh of electricity per year. My average cost including maintenance will work out at 2.5p per kWh. That is insanely cheap. The construction is reviewing no incentive and because the ‘fuel’ ie wind is free is super cheap. Take another example, solar PV. I can but a solar array (trade prices) at £64 for a 405w panel. 10 of those for a 4kW array, plus an inverter for £500, £500 for other bits so for less than £2000 I can have a 4kW solar array, which will generate around 3,700kWh per year. Just like the one that’s already on my roof, which had been there 9 years and as of today has 34,512kWh of electricity. That cost me £4,800 back then (they’ve since got better and cheaper) but even at that price, if it stops generating tomorrow my average cost per kWh has been only 13.9p per kWh, but it’s got a 25 year warranty, so it should continue to generate electricity. It’s currently saving me more because the retail price of electricity right now is about 27p per unit. So every kWh it generates saves me 27p. I can also use it to fill my car so I can drive cheap too.
Great video from an expert in wind. As a commissioner for a small MA light dept, we have 3MW of onshore wind in town, but we need the high capacity factor of offshore wind to meet our requirements for a non-cabon emitting portfolio. There is more than 40GW of offshore wind on the East coast of US in the pipeline and we know costs will fall as we gain experience and build a supply chain.
I wonder about adding gearing to turbines. Perhaps the forces are just too high, but by using a concept of even a 3 speed gearbox, you could significantly increase the safe operational wind speed
Most onshore wind turbines have gearboxes, most offshore don't. The reason is mainly reliability, the gearbox needs more maintenance than other components which is expensive offshore so they mostly avoid it.
Wrong. 90% of that population lives in poor countries, which cannot afford even the cheapest electricity, i.e. generated by the coal-burning plants. The so-called "renewable" energy is 6 times more expensive. Now, a question to you personally: would you agree to have YOUR PERSONAL TAXES to be increased by 2-3 times, so YOUR GOVERNMENT could pay those countries for that hugely expensive electricity? The most important reason this extremally stupid idea about "renewables" became super popular - that the 90% of the population have no idea about the cost of producing and distributing of electrical energy. On the other hand the uneducated, morally perverted and completely corrupted politicians ban the professionals from taking this issue in their hands.
@@arney444 First I suggest you look at the LCOE for coal versus renewable options. Second, a key advantage of wind and (especially) solar is that it can be built incrementally, one panel or turbine at a time, whereas a 2GW coal (or nuclear) power plant takes years and $100m before it produces a single watt.
@@Richardincancale Thank you for an attempt on education. I am a professional electrical engineer with over 40 years of experience in design/constriction of the power power plants of all kind. Plus transmission lines. Your message shows that you have no idea about the cost of construction: building a fossil-fuel plant within one time increment cost much LESS than installing an equal generation capacity in 20-23 phases. But the most important is that you are trying to change the topic, by ignoring the fact that electricity produced by "renewable" source is still 4.5 - 6.5 times more expensive. Where is your answer to the question: how could people afford to pay for such super expensive energy? Do you PERSONALLY agree to have your taxes raised by 2-3 times to pay for that?
@@Richardincancale to continue on this topic (read my first reply first): the world largest manufacturer of the electrical power equipment - Siemens AG - has been desperately trying to sell its wind-turbine manufacturing divisions for the last 1.5 years. Why? Because the European countries, which had been super-entusiastic about wind power, finally realized that they simply don't have money to continue to subsidize this business. And I know Siemens very well, as it has been my major competitor for the last 15 years. The people at the top of the company are extremally knowledgeable about their business and are very good at analyzing the perspectives. BTW, I don't know where you live, but in the US it takes only 2 years to build and commission a combined-cicle gas combustion plant with output of 1,050 MVA (1,050,000 KVA) (my latest project)
@@arney444 I also worked in the electricity industry for a national utility with both renewable and fossil sources. The cost of renewables is now well below fossil fuel. “For the last 13 to 15 years, renewable power generation costs from solar and wind power have been falling. Between 2010 and 2022, solar and wind power became cost-competitive with fossil fuels even without financial support. The global weighted average cost of electricity from solar PV fell by 89 per cent to USD 0.049/kWh, almost one-third less than the cheapest fossil fuel globally. For onshore wind the fall was 69 per cent to USD 0.033/kWh in 2022, slightly less than half that of the cheapest fossil fuel-fired option in 2022.” - IRENA.
Thank you Rosie, extremely clear and informative but as to your last point for consistency in messaging. Unfortunately when governments et. al. give a diktat and a lie then when the truth sinks in there will obviously be reversals and back pedaling. The UK have been old that we HAVE to be zero carbon and that renewables are UNDENIABLY cheaper and will create masses of UK jobs. That failed bidding process alone should put this in some doubt. These jobs will actually just add to a massively over inflated public sector making our energy industry an immensely costly addition to our civil service paid for by taxes and poverty inducing energy costs (in turn destroying local production and economies). There is a place for these projects in our energy mix but there needs to be more honesty about the challenges and the costs of the unpredictability (helped by offshore), transmission infrastructure, storage, back-ups, environmental impact to birds and sea-life and decommissioning costs and impacts. Then we can talk honesty about the pace and cost of investment. It may well be different elsewhere but in the UK we are being told that we must do this AT ANY COST as apparently the global sustainability of the planet hinges on our 1% (and falling) of Global emissions as once we cripple ourselves economically the rest of the world will apparently follow us into the wilderness. Sorry to unload Rosie you do great work but unfortunately the engineering and many other points you make so well have to be viewed through an unfavorable political lens.
Could it be meaningful to rinse off salt dust periodically to reduce corrosion? I mean, as long as the nacelle is well over 10 meters over the sea level a vacuum pump and a cold trap is all that would be needed to distill water. And when air temperatures up there is well below the ocean water temperature no external energy would be required to power the distillation process.
You neglect to mention that most equipment, blades, turbines, etc. come from China where they get 70% of their energy from coal. Similarly for solar panels. So, the costs for “clean” energy are much higher.
True. I guess we also have to factor in how much renewable energy is used to produce mining equipment and to power the mining operations for fossil fuels over time. If a turbine has an expected lifetime of say 10 years (this is an example, I don’t know the real world figure) we can factor how much co2 was needed to produce it and compare to 10 years of building and operating the mining and operation of a fossil fuel energy plant(coal, gas). I wonder how that would stack up. 😅
Hi Rosie, thanks for another interesting and informative video! @11:19 you briefly mention energy storage in connection with offshore wind pg. As a possible solution, this might be achieved with local to offshore wind turbines by having offshore pumped storage hydroelectricity. The way pumped hydro might work offshore is by having an undersea chamber, (or series of chambers) submerged at a certain depth. As power is generated by the wind turbines, water is pumped out of the chambers and replaced with air, creating a storage of gravitational energy potential. When power is required, the chambers could be reflooded, and the transfer of air/water used to drive similar machinery (hydro turbine). The process seems pretty straight forward, combining different elements of existing technologies, making it cheap to implement and convenient to locate. Contrary to expectation, I have not heard or seem much about such an energy storage technology, which could potentially ratchet up to advantages and possibilities for expanded offshore wind prospects. I was wondering if the idea sounds interesting to you and if so, would be willing render some pros and cons?
Other than it not being true: Only offshore wind is in Europe in VERY shallow seas, with base mounts which are NOT present anywhere else in the world other than a reef somewhere maybe. Using Lazards GUESS is absurd unless you think you can get away with it as you are talking to complete ignorants on the topic. Also the oil and gas offshore infrastructure is right there in the North sea whereas VAST majority of coast line where there is wind will have ZERO or near zero naval capability to build in the ocean with the sole exception being the Gulf of Mexico, or Persian gulf, both of which have ~zero wind so one CANNOT double use the existing infrastructure defraying costs. Offshore therefore is ALWAYS projected to cost at MINIMUM 3X if not 4X onshore anywhere else in the world not named(North Sea). Its a joke.
@@w8stralEast and Southeast Asia has pretty good capacity for steel fabrication and ship building. With fixed turbines already a common sight in Taiwan as the first mover in Asia and in progress for Vietnam and Philippines. Japan and Korea only have small area for fixed base but they're already starting, their big rollout however has to be floating due to water depths
@@w8stral ' Only offshore wind is in Europe in VERY shallow seas' If you wish to make absolutist claims, check your data: ' The 11 Siemens Gamesa 8.0-167 DD wind turbines will be moored at a site 140 km offshore where winds are consistently stronger in water depths of up to 300 metres.' This is Hywind's floating turbine array. It is admittedly modest, but so is everything initially.
You just made my point for me.. Only in very shallow seas with oil and gas infrastructure all around saving half the up front cost and they have great wind resources. No other region of the world has this other than Patagonia minus the naval assets. And those 11 turbines are a trial to see what the costs are as they have no idea. Claiming they will be great and cost effective is a nice joke. Good one. @@davidmartin3947
Offshore wind has the benefit of working as a transition option. Infrastructure, like ports and ships and workers can be repurposed from fossil extraction to building renewables. And the inherent "big project nature" with centralization, large investments, complex legal matters is perfectly tailored for those companies that previously build coal, oil and gas plants.
For onshore wind farms in Europe, the issue is not only the availability of space, but also whether it is possible to get to where the wind is. You can't simply flatten a forest or a village to transport +25m long blades. So the cost of construction in the US is irrelevant to Europe because they have a lot of flat wasteland on the plains. Where the plots have almost no value compared to land in Europe.
Thanks Rosie, really informative. It would be very interesting to see the comparison of dollars of energy generated between onshore and offshore wind turbines given the production graphs you showed. Especially given the massive daily price fluctuations.
@@pear7777 Shipping ,Though the deaths of birds are a worry . Last report there is up to 6 million , Yes million tons of F/G blades coming up to there use by date this year , Good for the environment ????
A question to the Engineer. When calculations of cost/MWh are made. Does that include how long they will last? Today a Nuclear power can very well live on for 80 years, tecnicaly for ever since every components can be swapped out in many cases. And better design is coming all the time. A wind farm live for 25- 35 years. In reality much less. Then it has to be demolished and replaced. So you have to build the wind farm many times as the reactor keep running. Costs of maintenance has to be included. But do they consider cost of grid building is much higher for the wind farms then the nuclear plant. And then you need baseload for the grid. And you need additional power often fossils when the wind or sun is not there. In Sweden we have long cold winters, not much sun or wind the coldest period and then the need for energy is peaking. So you get additional casts for wind and sun. And finally nuclear tend to deliver over 90% of running time. Wind and solar obviously much less. Resulting in energy when no one need it and no energy when needed. Toxic waste in nature from the blades, dead birds and big impact on nature is other wind energy-costs. The wind-solar alternative come with a terrible need for area and material, when a nuclear plant is very much the opposite. My impression is that calculations are maybe not made with realistic data. Politics often sounds very naive when speaking or at least very biased. Making bad investments is just bad, and we see a lot of that. And no atoimc waste is not a big danger, and it is relative very safe. The use of coal is killing so many more, right? We must see things for what they are. If we wan't to do good. .
For every windmill, they need a full backup system to produce when the wind isn't blowing. So you really need 2 systems. For a nuclear plant, the grid will cost about the same as the plant. For windmill farms and distributed production, the grid will cost twice as much as the windmills. Windmills at sea will probably last less then 10 years. China is burning 4.5 billion tons of coal each year - what about that? Anyway, the ocean will eat all excess CO2 anyway. We are dealing with a rediciliouss doomsday sect here - don't try to make sense of anything.
The timescale for finance and implementation is a critical problem for some nuclear power in Europe. Perhaps the offshore electrons can be seen as a bridging supply technology before other fabled systems appear at commercial scale? Fusion, Thorium reactors etc...By the next century (if humans ever get there) the polar regions may become colder and drier overall due to the slowing global sea currents (currently observed), the tropics possibly uninhabitable in parts. The CO2 hangs around a long time: 'Once it’s added to the atmosphere, it hangs around, for a long time: between 300 to 1,000 years. Thus, as humans change the atmosphere by emitting carbon dioxide, those changes will endure on the timescale of many human lives'. science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/greenhouse-gases/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/
@@JHawkins-jf6bs RE: CO2 hangs around a long time That's pure hogwash. The air is in chemical equilibrium with the ocean. If we doubled the concentration in the air by tomorrow, most of this doubling would be eaten by the sea within 1 year, and almost all (98%) within 5 years. If we remove all CO2 from the air tomorrow, most will be back within 1 year, and 98% within 5 years. The ocean is leaking CO2 as hell, but when the pressure between the air and ocean is in equilibrium, the leak will stop. If the pressure in the air is higher, the ocean will immediately start eating CO2. We do not have a CO2 problem whatsoever. It is pure fantasy. No CO2 problem whatsoever in any case.
Engineer is still silent. Just another thing. Battery cost and solar panels are diving like crazy in her graph. So then consumer prizes should be really low now. No they are not. A new EV costs like a small house. And another thing wind turbine blades spreads tons and tons of microplastics over the crops, into fishing waters. This is a biased channel as you could expect. She says energy storage will be solved in the future. Well, we do this in the future instead, okay? No, it is not just windmills are ugly. There are so much more. A blip in history. No the green scam is the blip in history. But prove me I am wrong please.
So basically renewable offshore generation is expensive. The latest auction failed because the companies wanted more minimum payments. In south of England already agreed projects were cut back because of visible farms in the channel
Slightly odd to put the UK in the category of countries not as blessed as Denmark with offshore wind resource when its coastal waters typically experience 10%-15% higher average wind speeds.
Even in Denmark with its Energy TRANSITIONAL bliss, not 100 % of energy is renewable. Simply because 20 % of time wind is too weak to generate any electricity and 10 % of time wind is too strong. So they have to fire gas. Making its wind investment absolutely useless. Whats a point of investing into wind if you still have to maintain THE SAME CAPACITY of traditional sources?
Terrific as usual. This stuff is so important as we heat up from carbon burning. Lead time is needed. The little goofy sail boat could be better but we can't have everything. 😀
Hi Rosie, I worked as a draughtsman dealing primarily with steel ship construction. The monopile and jacketed structure options puzzle me. We can build ships out of steel because we can pull them out of the water/drydock them to paint them every now and then, otherwise corrosion will chew away the structure once the paint system is compromised, which always happens sooner or later. Given all the other difficulties that have to be dealt with at great expense to get offshore wind turbines to work, it would be sensible to seek the longest possible lifespan. I would have thought the mere idea of fixing a steel structure in place like that so that it cannot be maintained, and then parking a very expensive wind turbine on top would be enough to give any seasoned engineer palpitations.
Keep in mind the oil and gas sector has used the same fixed offshore installation concepts for years. Anodes and ICCP systems exist, and you can add corrosion allowance to the design.
I am affraid it is wishfull thinking. Nobody cares about any "sensibility" of wind farms. They idea is to take money as governments are stupid enough to pay ... and run away. Rosie is clever and wonderful, but she is on the wrong course.
Thanks Rosie. Looks like the 'economical unsustainability' of offshore wind is just a commercial glitch. I was thinking recently about when offshore wind blows (largely driven by sunrise/sunset?) and how it aligns well with domestic consumption, which should reduce the demand on storage. Maybe the LCOE should be commuted to the consumer cost to factor in aspects like storage & even energy supplier markups (which home generation doesn't have).
So here in Ireland we have the most expensive electricity in Europe....that's what happened when you have to build and maintain two generating systems the so called renewables and the fossil fuel plants..
All this approach needs to become a real tool for tackling the climate crisis is to use the time it gives us to build a lot more nuclear power to take over from it for the long term future 👍 Nuclear power is really the only true answer to the climate crisis.
I agree but nuclear needs to go a lot cheaper before it can compete with coal. I believe the wind resource is large enough to undermine the whole fossil fuel industry
@@mikefallwell1301 Yep unfortunately that is the big catch 22 with current nuclear power and how it is right now. It needs to become cheaper to compete with other forms of power generation, in order to become used more and widely adopted. But it needs to be become prevalent and used more, in order to hit economies of scale, which will make building them cheaper...🤨 Well this and all the scaremongering are the two big things hold nuclear power back.
Lots of people in the UK rubbish nuclear for being too expensive, but a strike price of £77/MWh for wind must compare badly with £90/MWh for nuclear once you add in storage?
@@imtheeastgermanguy5431 Go for Thorium and there is very minimum waste . But those huge turbine blades were supposed to last 25 years , in reality they are done for in about 5 years. We are still learning on this
Wind farms generally stay on budget due to the relatively simple nature of the project. Nuclear goes 2 to 3 times over budget and over schedule and are then paid out by taxpayers or energy users. Same is true for modern large fossil fueled plants, just to a slightly lesser extent.
Yes Rosie is clearly impartial and independent and can be relied on to take an unbiased look at the topic. So what that she has made her living from offshore wind for the last 20 years, obviously that has no bearing at all on the position she takes.
The aspect to focus on is that in North Sea, particularly off Scotland, developers were building wind power plants with No subsidies, a couple years ago (before inflation changed the situation).
Yes that's a good perspective to keep in mind, but typically engineers of her caliber do not need to rely on a specific industry to be lucratively employed.
So, let me get this straight. Offshore wind will use oilfield tech to deploy massive structures in deeper waters and be serviced by men in helicopters which will cost twice as much as other available sources of energy for similar regions. Sounds like a winner.🏆
@@bakker071 No surprise really. They not surprisingly just follow the money or more aptly, the gravy train of 70% governmental subsidies including overgenerous tariffs snd even payments for when national grid doesn't draw in
In Sweden region 3 and 4 had an average price of 0,64SEK/kWh. In the same period windturbines sold electricity on average for 0,26SEK/kWh. Atleast here too many winturbines produce electricity when demand is low while beeing aunable to produce while demand is high. There were days when price was 8SEK/kWh and windturbines produced 0 electricity. Meanwhile when winturbines produce electricity the national production goes up 20% and price drops to levels where it's not profitable to operate them. Here discussions about windturbines is if any of them are profitable at all (here).
Rosie run the total numbers on the alternate choices. Yes I know doing nothing and climate destabilisation is more expensive. A nuclear industry world is dangerous to military defence budgets. Sodium batteries and newer, cheaper batteries are important technologies must be considered.
Of course. But some things do so MUCH MUCH more than others, and offshore wind is environmentally the least harmful way to generate a watt of electricity of all.
One comment about the USA - they can't use European ships to install wind turbines there as ships have to be built in US (quirky old law) - which also delayed projects.
I am not particularly a fan of wind turbines on or off-shore. Nuclear is more energy dense and cleaner. Off-shore turbines still leak oil and require more maintenance. If there are any effects to underwater tonal sonic disruption, it is ignored. Off-shore wind raises residential rates. There is also a call to ban offshore monopiles.
Hi. "Clean" just doesn't exist in energy generation. At best we can categorise ito clean categories. Wind is only clean ito generation output (no fossil fuel gases etc.). However, just like nuclear energy, it takes a lot of dirty mining and manufacturing to get the plants producing. They also have their own unique waste disposal challenges. Here in SA we are blessed with one of the most stable geological tectonic plates on the planet, so we just put the longlife isotope waste in concrete encased steel canisters deep underground. But wind turbines kill millions of birds every year especially critical migratory pollinating birds, as well as predatory birds that control vermin and pests which destroy agricultural production. And what to do with tons of unusable fibreglass turbine blades? I've seen one such blade graveyard. It is monstrously ugly and toxic to the environment if not carefully designed and protected.
True the blades are not recyclable, but just about every other part is. Vestas the wind turbine manufacturer claims their different models are 80 to 86% recyclable.
Build them far enough away and you can't even see them. Also, many people find them beautiful. Not everyone thinks they are ugly. I'd certainly rather look at wind turbines than cooling towers of coal and gas plants.
Concerning visual aspects... It is prudent to build a lot of this stuff, but Do Not build continuous expanses. That is, allow considerable visual Space between components of the arrays, so that those who resent the turbine arrays can look seaward 'here and there' without viewing an endless image of windmills.
Have you thought of doing a video on the importance of inter country interconnectors?. Here in Northern Europe there is a phenomenon known as "Dunkelflaute" which basically means no wind and no sun. Quite common in winter, lasting typically 3-5 days with a fairly strong correlation over Europe. So, interconnectors in the same time zone don't guarantee black outs. Unless of course we keep dozens of gas plants runnning all over Europe. Our UK government is targeting 40Gw of storage output, which is huge. But they havent said for how long?. (i.e. how many Gwhrs ). The 40Gw of storage output, is about a third of projected winter demand, so to cover a 1/3rd of such demand during a Dunkelflaute would need about 6Twh. On current containerised lithium density that would require 5,000,000 acres or 7,800 square miles. Conveniently about the size of Wales. A countryside littered with 20ft containers. Or will fusion save us all
Yes, northwest Europe has a particular problem with winter anticyclonic highs - it is probably the part of the world where building a completely renewable grid is toughest. If nuclear is cost-competitive anywhere it should be there. Though as Rosie points out, there are relatively nearby parts that do not suffer as much from dunkelflauten - ie the North Sea. Plus as you point out big interconnectors with sunnier climes, ideally in different time zones, help.
Also an illustration of how the so called economics of renewable energy is dependent on govt. decisions , not just supposedly objective market conditions. Also raises the question of whether these govts. , the Tories in England for instance are really trying to bring in renewables or just look like they are.
Well, who should pay for production when the wind isn't blowing? We need energy/electricity even when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining. Who should produce then, and who should pay? We need to pay for all 3 systems?
The omission of the new grid costs in each solution, and the future expansion in 100% electric world can not give the best choice. Expensive storage is built into the EV battery. Utilization factor can be maximum if used. Selfplug-in V2G EVs will be the favourite feature. 24/7 Utilization. 😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
@@lawrenceheyman435the Uk has links to Norway, Denmark, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Ireland. And one is in planning with Morocco. And I hear rulers about one with North America, which is actually about the same distance as Morocco. Though that is only to NE Canada- it will still need to go quite a way more to any population centres.
@bertiesmith3021 look at a map, which is closer to Denmark? Also by your logic, the UK is being backed by all of the above - lucky you. It's not a one way street
Another great video Rosie. Very informative. It's such a shame to see this resource not yet being taken advantage along the Victorian and NSW coasts. Concerted anti-wind farm campaigns from big and small media and local NIMBYs are really disappointing. Hopefully this all gets resolved soon and we can start producing clean energy from offshore wind in Australia.
Sorry, what is “the crisis?” Besides the fast rate of speaking and a few charts, (had to use CC to read the content), explaining engineering and environmental details, I concluded offshore wind farms are productive, profitable, reliable and sustainable. Did I miss something?
It seems to me that a quantified way of comparing the demand by time of day, with the production by time of day, is pretty essential to have conversations that are productive. LCOE seems like a nearly useless measure, when talking about renewables (or any source that you can't turn on or off at will...but that's essentially renewables).
So, in the USA consumer electricity costs £0.17 (GBP / KW Hour). In the UK the consumer electricity costs £0.45 GBP/Kw Hour). So as the UK adds more and more off-shore windmils (way above the 'average country'), the unit cost of electricity, to the consumer, keeps on increasing. Many businesses have had to leave the UK because of uneconomic electricity costs. This has reduced the number of highly paid jobs and injected serious structural weaknesses into the economy. It looks like the UK tax payer is heavily subsidising the offhore wind industry, at considerable cost.
Yet LCOE of offshore wind is 6-12p/kWh, and the current price of electricity is usually set by the incremental cost of gas as the last entrant to the market. Yet, somehow you aren't arguing against gas, almost as if you have an agenda.
If you're paying 45p/kWh then you need to change your provider. Electricity is half that in the UK! Electricity prices are tied to wholesale gas prices, which spiked after Covid, and with the war in Ukraine shutting off Russian gas to Europe. If we wean ourselves off gas, we will pay much lower prices as we don't have to tie the price to it. As for reducing highly paid jobs... I don't have any figures (nor have you provided any sources for such a claim), but the east coast towns that were formerly fishing and steel towns (Grimsby, Hull, Sunderland etc) are seeing a resurgence with the offshore wind industry. Being self-reliant on renewables, as well as providing long-term skilled employment the length of the land, can only be good for the country, no?
"There is no free lunch" What is the impact of disrupting the natural widflow on a massive scale? When humans 1st developed the gas engine, we all thought it was harmless. Because we didn't know about the impact of CO2. We didn't consider it on a large scale. Could we be making the same mistake with wind and solar?
Certainly there is some effect, but it's several orders of magnitude (ie. hundreds or thousands of times) smaller than that of greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels for energy, and therefore vastly preferable.
On shore wind and solar are the cheapest sources of power available except for hydro. Since hydro is limited by geography for most on shore wind and solar is simply the cheapest source of electricity. Even with storage they are cheaper than other none carbon emitting sources like nuclear.
Not only money costs. The famous Texas cold snap (happened due to rely on renewables) killed six times MORE people than the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986.
Rosie, Hope the subsequent Floating Platform Offshore Wind post. Will include a section on the possibility of it also generating electricity from secondary power sources, such as from wave energy, not only from wind? Which would also reduce the correlation of the power output. Increasing its marginal value. And reducing the need for storage for the grid. Seems like a natural synergy. That would also reduce the need for energy storage for the grid. Has a submerged floating island, as a platform for numerous wind turbines, ever been considered or tried? Possibly out of a calcium carbonate CO2 sequestering, air infused material? Seems like it would also have environmental benefits too, in terms of attracting sea life too?
What about the cost to remove the wind turbine when it's no longer in service? How much does that cost? And who pays for it? Or are the farms just left to corrode for centuries in the sea?
I still don't understand that some people are positive on electricity prices remaining stable or even dropping, when the investments for installed capacity, grid infrastructure, stability control and storage need to be done. I might be wrong but as most companies that are investing in these sectors, are for profit with shareholders, they will want to make good profit quite quickly. A mainly renewable energy grid is possible but what will the cost be for the consumer and industry?
Superb video. I still don't fully understand how cost is such a barrier for offshore wind (or onshore+stotage) when electricity from coal, nuclear or gas peaker plants is more expensive, even before considering the externalities of climate and air pollution, which for coal in particular are huge.
Lazards figures are based on NEW builds. Now if you already have a Coal Power Station sitting on top of a Coal mine then the cost to produce is far far lower as the capital cost has been paid off. I think Lazards do cover this in a few figures and its down at $ 24/MWH ie Very cheap and very reliable. The Renewables are cheaper than Fossil Fuels comment uses Lazards and like with like ie New Builds. A different debate when replacing existing already built Power Stations.
@TimMountjoy-zy2fd For sure the internal cost of maintaining existing coal power plants is lower. But we're still building new coal, gas and nuclear plants around the world, which makes me wonder why the cost of offshore wind is such a stumbling block. Plus, according to Our World in Data, there are 25 air pollution deaths per TWh from coal electricity. If you assume the value of statistical life is 10 million dollars (a standard economic figure), then the external cost due to air pollution alone (not including climate change or running costs) is about 250 dollars a megawatt hour.
The price cap for UK offshore wind (£77/MWh) is a sleight of hand, as this value in 2012 money. Inflation to 2024 money values adds about 30% and it is more correct to use 2024 price cap in 2024 money values, and that's £100/MWh. The energy market doesn't want intermittent sources of electricity, but values firm on-demand supply. We cannot run a modern economy using wind alone, for electricity generation. We therefore have to consider wind power only as a supplement to something else which satisfies the firmness requirement of power supply to consumers. The "something else" is most likely going to be significantly fossil fuelled as it has to cater for all of the demands of supplying power and balancing the network in periods when wind generation is contributing little or nothing, In this context, we have to ask the question: does intermittent and unpredictable power at £100/MWh reduce or increase the total cost of supply of firm electricity? Invariably, it increases the cost. Firstly, because at £100/MWh it is much more expensive than fossil fuelled power (without "carbon taxes" to hamper the economics of fossil fuelled electricity). And secondly because of all the infrastructure and balancing costs of accommodating these intermittent sources. It is no coincidence that the more renewable power that is added to an electricity network, the higher customer tariffs to recover the total cost. It is no surprise that wind generation only exists through government-sponsored subsidy contracts. The stand-alone private investment case doesn't exist.
Rosie, given you work in the industry I hardly expect you to rubbish this intermittent and completely unreliable power source. For renewables to work you require a backup power source such as gas, coal, nuclear and hydro. This means you need 2 grids to pay for, that’s why we are experiencing huge power bills. When the sun sets and the wind does not blow for several days this means a 100% power delivery failure from renewables when the sun sets. RENEWABLES are completely useless. Nuclear is the only tech that gives you net zero by 2050 and a nuclear power plant lasts 4 times longer than any solar panel or wind turbine. Replacing renewables 4 times over the life of a nuclear reactor makes nuclear a fraction of the cost. Every country that went more than 30% renewables failed due to power delivery instability. The countries that are close to 100% renewable are amongst the poorest countries. Prove me wrong.
The voice of one crying in the wilderness !!! I still have a hope that wind turbine infrastructure will be reused one day. For floating nuclear power plants. Like MIT Dr.Buongiorno project or Seabord project in Denmark.
How about building an offshore-ready windfarm near the coast, and wait for sea level rise to take it off shore? That strategy seems consistent with most major govts sense of urgency over climate change. 😮
Your question? NO. Like other large scale renewables It is not sustainable, not environmentally friendly, far from emissions free to procedure, among many others. What they do have is the potential to make big bucks
Yes I agree and I have a video roughly planned out about why it's good to overbuild renewables . But I don't think it will reduce the need for wind and offshore much as solar power is just so correlated.
I have a rather interesting concept, why not build out solar to follow the rotation of the earth, making it easier to reach overall capacities.@@EngineeringwithRosie
cover all the electricity needs with minimal yields - and transcontinental HVDC connections of course - and use all the excess energy to make green H2, we'll be needing a LOT of that
Certainly nobody has ever complained about having too much energy available any more than they'd complain about their car's engine being too powerful. I like decentralization of such things, which, with an excess of production capacity, protects against disasters, both natural and man-made.
I remember being told that few offshore oil rigs were terrible for the ocean ecosystem. How does having hundreds of times more offshore wind towers have no effect?
@sta “'Thrown to the wind' - are wind farms really killing whales?” potholer54 [Short answer: Of course not! The causes of known whale deaths are mostly ship collisions & entanglement in fish nets. Know what would eliminate 40% of world shipping? That’s right, GETTING RID OF FOSSIL FUELS!] 40% of global shipping is just moving fossil fuels around. And as potholer points out, changing the methods & equipment used by fishing ships would reduce whale deaths, too. So would people eating fewer fish, just like eating fewer cows, pigs, chickens, & water buffalo would lead to less deforestation, ocean dead zones, & mass bird deaths caused by habitat loss, toxicity, the insect apocalypse… Oil spills, oil pits, coal & oil air pollution, coal sludge ponds, fracking & flaring kill billions of birds every year. Many times more than wind turbines per KWh.
New York canceling offshore wind projects might have something to do with the success of the city of Montreal just a few hundred km to the north being able to be at 100% renewable for electricity generation with the price that people pay on their bills being about a third of what New Yorkers pay, because of the use of a better form of renewable.
The UK imports about £100 billion of energy a year , so any energy produced in house has a large effect on the balance of payments and national debt.
Don’t you mean “ electricity ? Bad English there , “electricity” is the product of power stations not “ energy” ,
2022 was an abnormal year though.
In 2022, the UK spent about £63 billion on crude oil, petrol, diesel, and other oil-based fuels, with another £49 billion spent on buying gas. The rest was spent on imports of coal and electricity - making a total of £117 billion. In 2021, £54 billion was spent on energy imports, with £48 billion spent in 2019.
As long as the poor get poorer,the Tories are happy.In fact,it's all part of their plan.
That is why they are making the shift to Cando nuclear.
@@kenlydon1395 It's probably the result of who he's been talking to. Most, if not all, European languages typically use the word 'energy' when talking about electricity production.
I was told by a offshore gas worker in Taranaki that offshore wind will be good for his company, good for regional and national economy but super bad for the environment. His reason was the crane ship that comes from Norway to do maintenance is polluting. Then he proceeds to tell me the same ship is used by the fossil gas industry in Taranaki. This is otherwise a very smart person that has been programmed by the industry he works in, programmed to believe crazy.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Wood it be inappropriate to suggest he might have been ‘gaslit’
I have also spent time in oil n’ gas in Taranaki and it’s a common & understandable blindness amongst people with a vested interest in the status quo..
@@electricAB agreed, if by understandable you mean disgusting..
i am somehow thinking that those claims like _salary depends on his not understanding it._ just normalize that disgusting behaviour.. am i wrong?
Do a elétric vessel
@@electricAB No it *would* not be inappropriate to suggest he might have been gaslit.
It is actually really amazing when I, here in Perth, explain to people how well Solar and Wind Anti-collorate, you see it click for people that have just not thought about it before.
Well the bad news is they don't anti correlate enough and even a few times matters. So lets say there are 30 days a year (its actually more) where Wind is low at night. The problem is you need enough backup to cater for those nights and the NEM (East Coast not WA) runs between 20 & 30GW on average so at night you can get Supply Gaps that are 15-18GW deep and in Winter last over 12 hours ie A shortfall over night of 100+ GW's.
Rethink-x has an excellent study on how to meet demand using wind, solar and batteries. Essentially you overbuild wind and solar so the amount of battery storage need is greatly reduced. By building 3-4 times your energy needs, the number of days where there isn’t enough solar or wind goes down dramatically. The few days where there still isn’t enough energy, you have battery storage for those periods. They show that this system will also be the lowest cost in 2030.
Batteries are getting cheaper with projections being they'll reach $50/kwh in the next 5-7 years. Nothing can beat producing your own electricity and storing it for using it at night.
@@kylekleman That is just way more expensive than a gas generator, let alone the waste of overbuilding. Maybe that would be viable with hydrogen or methane production from the excess production, but the batteries need to be used to make it economically viable. The other hidden cost is the load management. It gets exponentially more expensive when you reduce the amount of base production and replace it with variable production.
Basically the low production days will become so expensive that it is economically viable to install the needed battery power while during sunny/windy times energy will be free or hold a negative price.
@@TimMountjoy-zy2fd With battery prices coming down so much, and manufacturing of them ramping up so much, I can see battery energy storage facilities playing a role here to smooth out the lulls in production when the wind is not blowing and the sun isn't shining.
Wow, so refreshing to get detailed explanations from someone who clearly knows her topic.
Great video Rosie! Especially happy with your explanation of why offshore wind seems so popular despite its higher LCOE as reported in Lazard. The cute boat-Rosie animation was also great!
Glad you liked that part, that was the main reason I made the video. I am constantly trying to explain that point in my regular job, thought making a video I could refer people to would be less repetitive!
Well she Lied via omission. Where there is wind, there is no naval industrial presence anywhere else in the world outside of the North Sea due to presence of Oil and Gas naval assets for construction. This an gargantuan cost which is NOT tabulated. Best offshore in the world would be down around Patagonia... Guess what NO ONE is trying to build down in the HIGH wind sea zones of Patagonia which are FAR superior to ANY other region of the world other than Antartica? Wind Turbines is what. Also, no other region(edit I think Argentina Patagonia has some, but I forget their depth) of the world has shallow seas and High winds like the North Sea which automatically incrases cost by a presumed ~50% over that of shallow sea bases, so her stated 2X more expensive is an absurd joke anywhere not named NORTH SEA. Anywhere else we are looking at 3X-->4X cost of on land. Wind also must be present with copious quanties of NG. Other than North America, no one else has copious quantities of NG to balance the fickle nature of wind. Wind is a Northern Europe/Plains of USA and a couple other geographic regions rare phenomena(Mongolia, S. Africa, for instance or Patagonia) with maybe East Africa. E. Africa with the PErsian gulf close ~enough and its NG might work. China is via its Mongolian wind is hoping they can tap their very large hydro network, but even then their Capacity factor for their wind sits at ~24% via their own claims and this is with modern wind turbines. Europe/USA have ~34% capacity factor, but lots of OLD inefficient HAWT's and all their new installations usually hit 50% capacity factor using near identical turbines as the ones put up in inner Mongolia of China just as an example.
It's a cute little boat, but as a sailor - it looks like it's sailing backwards! It looks like the artist copied the outlines of sails from a number of photos and combined them in a way that makes no sense and results in an 'uncanny valley' effect.
@@w8stral I think you missed the point about being close to cities in small or densely populated countries with limited space for onshore wind.
Patagonia and Antarctica have few or no cities, and plenty of space for onshore wind. I'll wager they never develop their offshore wind resources, however vast they are.
Your point is well made that the North Sea has been the first place for offshore wind to gain popularity largely due to its established oil and gas engineering industry, with capital equipment in place and experienced workers. The same applies to the Gulf coast of Texas but there has been no offshore wind boom there because there IS plenty of space on land in Texas, and the wind boom has been onshore.
Gas is certainly useful for offsetting the variability of wind generation, but so are solar and hydro. Gas is not a necessity, it's just the incumbent. For now.
Uh, no, YOU miss the point, when NG is a SMALL fraction of the cost, why would ANYONE with a brain cell put in Wind Turbines? LCOE cost analysis NEVER adds in grid stability, making it a giant lie when you compare to begin with. Vast majority of the world has near Zero wind power potential. Wind potential is exceptional in its Geographically specificity. Same is true of solar. @@JonathanMaddox
One of the most interesting video about windpower - thank you!
I found it very interesting as well ......
However ....
Huge solution to a virtually non existent problem
Interesting only to confirm benefits of nuclear.
@@theknowall2232 I salute you!
Brilliant video, concise, clear, interesting... look forward to more.
That's an impressively information-dense 16 minutes. Thanks for a comprehensive summary delivered in a thoroughly balanced manner. You are becoming a national, if not global treasure :-)
Aww 😊
True. An international resource, given that you started out with videos created in Denmark when you were working there. I still remember your one where you made a working wind generator out of cake. 😊
Never points to the bad side such as propeller coating with sea spray, damage to the marine/mammal life world wide and the number of whales beached since these wonderful 300 mtr towers were forced into the sea bed.
@@trueriver1950 still my favourite video!
An interesting and informative video by someone who is obviously enthusiastic about wind turbines as a source of electricity. There are, however, some blind spots that result from that enthusiasm and being embedded in the industry.
Here are just a few.
1. It is an iron law of electricity generation that the lower the energy density of the source, the greater the material intensity. The quantity of steel, copper, rare earths, etc., is very, very high. In fact, if we generated our energy needs from wind turbines, we would probably cook the earth in the steel and cement construction and poison the planet with the toxic wastes that come from the production and dismantling of wind turbines. There is also the much higher demand for copper.
2. That leads to the second major issue. The absence of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of any of the so-called renewable energy sources. There are ISO Guidelines for LCAs and the reason no LCAs have been done that include environmental, social and economic costs is that the myth of so-called renewable energy sources being a panacea to our ecological overshoot and our carbon and toxicity colonialism will be exposed.
3. Whilst addressing the issue of greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation is addressed in a small way by wind turbines and solar PVs, many more serious environmental, toxicity and social problems are generated.
4. How do wind turbines help to address the issues raised by earth system scientists (read planetary boundaries, six of nine having now been crossed and all indicators are that things are only getting worse, driven, in part, by the mindless rush to so-called renewables.
5. Renewables is a misnomer. Wind turbines and Solar PVs are replaceable energy harvesting machines.
6. We are already dealing with a massive global plastics problem and the end of life disposal of wind turbine blades is only going to exacerbate that problem.
7. The IPAT identity notes that the environmental impact of humanity, I, is a product of population, P, affluence, A, and technology, T. Until we address issues of affluence (read demand for energy and resources/materials in the form of goods and products) and technology, we are not going to make matters better globally.
8. Earth Overshoot Day is in July this year. For Australia, where I live, it is in a March. We simply can’t keep consuming the planet the way we are doing at the moment. Many have been saying this for decades and things have only gotten worse. Read William R. Catton’s classic 1980 book, OVERSHOOT. then read Christopher Clugston’s latest book, INDUSTIALISM: OUR COMMITMENT TO IMPEMANENCE. And then ask why the neo-classical econ9mic paradigm which is fundamentally flawed still holds sway when better approaches such as ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS offer a more reality based approach.
In summary, it is time to break out of th3 narrow engineering paradigm and produce some videos that are reality based fro every creatures on earth, including the thousands killed every year by wind turbine blades (that creatures include bats, birds, insects).
A frustrated and retired electrical engineer and academic.
Point 2 was my thought. The cost of generation over the life of a nuclear plant vs wind, was this shown?
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
In 2018, they decommissioned a Nuclear Power station near where I live. It was first up and running in 1969. So, almost fifty years for that power plant. Wind turbines finally pay for their prodigious costs after 25 years. However, land based units might last 18 years. Offshore, I would believe their life span would be significantly less. How is this cost effective?
@@craig-michaelkierce1366 precisely.
@@craig-michaelkierce1366 Your not supposed to think.
A balanced explanation of the pros and cons, opportunities or setbacks or challenges, logistics, inflation, economy, comparative energy pricing and demand cycles, geographic conditions and adaptations, population density, environmental concerns.
Off shore windfarms are good for fish. Trawlers cannot operate in these areas.
Yep and the structure below will be colonised by seaweed and shellfish,etc.
OK for recreational fishing, I hope. @@chippysteve4524
Never thought about that!! That’s good then! (I’m vegan)
I was literally on a repair job in a north sea wind farm between the UK and Netherlands because a trawler damaged one of the subsea power cables. It took 7 weeks to complete the repair. Our vessel was $100,000 per day and burned 20 cubes of heavy fuel oil per day. We also had a mass flow excavator come in on another vessel at the end of the job to bury the repaired cable omega loop.
Multi million pound repair all because of one trawler who's trawl doors caught a cable that had came out of burial.
@@Nada-Mal Wow. I hope the trawler was fined
Such a thorough job of presenting this important topic, and your graphics make it easier to follow - great job!
Thanks Rosie. I really appreciate such a thorough explanation by someone who really knows what they are talking about, and cites sources of information. As a retired Aerodynamicist, I have a reasonable understanding of the physical generation of power from wind, and with long experience of stability augmentation of flight control, the automatic control of a turbine and generator is also well understood. But the civil engineering, economic, oceanic, and weather spects that you brought out are real eye-openers to me.
She does not know what she is talking about, she is ignoring the nuclear option. Wind is not a 'renewable' energy considering the cost to repair and replace.
Thanks!
Thank you!
Can't wait for the floating offshore one!
Neither can I, but probably not for the same reasons!
Floating wind is incredibly expensive just to build, but 2 of the 3 projects so far have failed from a reliability perspective, I’ll use US$. There have been 3 commercial wind farms, Hywind Scotland, Kincardine (Aberdeen Scotland) and Hywind Tampen in Norway to supply their oil and gas rigs, LOL.
H Scotland cost $10.97 billion per GW, it was established in 2017 and all the turbines are being towed back to Norway for a euphemistic ‘heavy maintenance’; a mere 7 years and the turbines are stuffed. Kincardine cost $8.9 B per GW, was commissioned in 2021 and had at least one turbine towed back to Rotterdam in 2023 for ‘maintainace’. H Tampen cost $8.49 B per GW and given it’s just been finished it’s too early to say how soon it will be till those turbines fail also.
Bear in mind that those astronomical construction and maintain costs are for assets that only generate 54% of their rated capacity. To put that in perspective, nuclear power in S Korea has a 96% capacity factor.
LCOE is inferior to total system cost calculations. Solar and wind complementing each other, on average, does not negate reserve requirements (there's still too many times when both are providing low output). Batteries are not sufficient either given that they're typically only able to provide for 4 to 6 hours.
Hence LCOE is fine if your renewable penetration is relatively low (< 20% of installed capacity). But once penetration gets really high... 40%+, additional integration costs go exponential, and LCOE doesn't account for that.
Even at low levels, like 10% of the grid, renewables become extremely expensive.
...worth pointing out, 50GW's of offshore wind at 32% efficiency factor is about 145TWh's/annum. Current UK domestic electrical consumption is around 98TWh's/annum, but that's relying on around 80-85% gas and oil heating to homes. The only way we'll get 26 million homes (plus a million extra the government is saying they'll build) to run on 145TWh's/annum will be by either leaving all homes running on gas/oil, or by upgrading all existing homes (around 22 million) to current new dwelling building regulations standard with heat pumps running at an average COP of 3... to do this by 2030? That's upgrading 3.6 million homes per year, and installing 3.6 million heat pumps per year (last year we installed 36,000 according to Carbon Brief)... and then also worth pointing out that the electricity will be generated throughout the year whereas the lions share will be needed for winter heating, so you'll be needing to store 72.5TWh of the wind energy generated by the 50GW's generators for up to six months for winter heating. At current storage costs per KWh... that's kind of insane.
"50GW'S of offshore wind at 32% efficiency factor..."
It's called *_capacity factor._*
@@aliendroneservices6621 ...sigh
Jevon’s paradox.
Off course the actual output of the wind is higher in the winter. While the solar is greater in the summer. So you do have seasonal balancing. Pumped hydro is good addition to this mix. Using current costs for anything in this transformational process is meaningless with traditional cost learning curves clearly in play.
@@colinpalmer9070 apologies, but if you're under the impression that cost curves are going to bring the price of energy storage down sufficiently to avoid the trillions of pounds needed to do the job, then I'd say I'm impressed by your optimism. Also I do this for a living.
Being working in OW since 2014 designing farms all over the world, and this is a great video to explain this amazing industry!! Congrats
Every Kiwi who was around in the 80's knows of the Freemantle Doctor. Even if they have never been to Perth.
Yeah because of Wellington is windier.
Americas Cup?
@@LawpickingLocksmith hey: are you related to lock picking lawyer? Just wondering, seeing your handle
It's bigger generation , more often, with less turbines and faster to deploy plus construction can work without stopping ( fish are not complaining)
There is a system called biorock reefs, basically uses a very low voltage current that causes calcium to precipitate out of the seawater and form a layer of minerals on rebar that is basically food that supercharges the growth of corals and shellfish. I've been obsessed with the idea of that being deployed on the underside of offshore wind turbines so that offshore wind farms also become massive biodiversity hotspots full of coral reefs.
These pilons after some years in operation get cleaned to prevent exactly that growth to occur, as that would increase shear. To avoid increasing risks of failure, those pilons would need to be a lot heavier, and more expensive. The anti-scouring protection at the base can serve as building blocks for ecosystems, and if you choose materials wisely, they may over time counter the harmful acidification process that results from the absorption of CO2 from the air into the sea.
Depends what the structure is, I think; and also the strength of the local ocean currents. The main shear stress would seem to be too come from the wind on the turbine, which is a huge force multiplied by a massive distance, this making a huge overturning moment. In contrast the water forces are probably lower, and certainly close to the base, leading to a lower overturning moment.
But I'm a physicist, not a wind power engineer, and is love to see Rosie's view on this. It's alreaydy possible that i may be mistaken. (AM i allowed to say that in a you tube comment?)
I remember reading that oil rigs add to bio diversity by being a place for various things to grow.
Rosie, that was an exceptionally clear overview of all the issues involved in offshore wind. Thank you! 👏👏I’m looking forward to your episode on floating offshore wind!
Anything on the environmental impact? During construction? Long term? Impact on migratory and resident birds? Impact on sea floor ecology? Fish populations? Anything on pollution (mining, CO2 emission) associated with production and maintenance?
How about cost of wind vs natural gas, coal and nuclear?
Wind and solar are infinitely-expensive, on a sustained basis.
I can’t help thinking that some of the reason that the offshore projects failed was just because they wanted a slice of the pie of the higher electricity prices.
It (recent abandonment of some offshore projects) was mostly a result of inflation surge, and supply issues for
materials. The projected costs assumed that the trend line of decreasing prices for offshore wind would continue,
which did not occur ... so substantial cost overruns loomed menacingly.
You are utterly incorrect. The Wind Turbine and Solar electrical generation is EXTREMALLY expensive. Depending on the exact place (affects the cost of construction) and the origin of the product (cost of the product) this multiple varies between 4.5 - 6.5 times. And it means that your government has no choice, but increase taxation on YOU, in order to pay for this "renewable" electricity.
@@arney444 That is not true at all. Onshore wind is objectively the cheapest form of energy generation. Please do look into it. Also do the maths.
I just bought a share of an onshore wind farm, it cost £2000 for my share and that percentage will generate about 3000kWh of electricity per year. My average cost including maintenance will work out at 2.5p per kWh. That is insanely cheap. The construction is reviewing no incentive and because the ‘fuel’ ie wind is free is super cheap.
Take another example, solar PV. I can but a solar array (trade prices) at £64 for a 405w panel. 10 of those for a 4kW array, plus an inverter for £500, £500 for other bits so for less than £2000 I can have a 4kW solar array, which will generate around 3,700kWh per year. Just like the one that’s already on my roof, which had been there 9 years and as of today has 34,512kWh of electricity. That cost me £4,800 back then (they’ve since got better and cheaper) but even at that price, if it stops generating tomorrow my average cost per kWh has been only 13.9p per kWh, but it’s got a 25 year warranty, so it should continue to generate electricity.
It’s currently saving me more because the retail price of electricity right now is about 27p per unit. So every kWh it generates saves me 27p.
I can also use it to fill my car so I can drive cheap too.
Great video from an expert in wind. As a commissioner for a small MA light dept, we have 3MW of onshore wind in town, but we need the high capacity factor of offshore wind to meet our requirements for a non-cabon emitting portfolio. There is more than 40GW of offshore wind on the East coast of US in the pipeline and we know costs will fall as we gain experience and build a supply chain.
I wonder about adding gearing to turbines. Perhaps the forces are just too high, but by using a concept of even a 3 speed gearbox, you could significantly increase the safe operational wind speed
Most onshore wind turbines have gearboxes, most offshore don't. The reason is mainly reliability, the gearbox needs more maintenance than other components which is expensive offshore so they mostly avoid it.
According to UN statistics around 40% of the world’s population lives
Wrong. 90% of that population lives in poor countries, which cannot afford even the cheapest electricity, i.e. generated by the coal-burning plants. The so-called "renewable" energy is 6 times more expensive. Now, a question to you personally: would you agree to have YOUR PERSONAL TAXES to be increased by 2-3 times, so YOUR GOVERNMENT could pay those countries for that hugely expensive electricity? The most important reason this extremally stupid idea about "renewables" became super popular - that the 90% of the population have no idea about the cost of producing and distributing of electrical energy. On the other hand the uneducated, morally perverted and completely corrupted politicians ban the professionals from taking this issue in their hands.
@@arney444 First I suggest you look at the LCOE for coal versus renewable options. Second, a key advantage of wind and (especially) solar is that it can be built incrementally, one panel or turbine at a time, whereas a 2GW coal (or nuclear) power plant takes years and $100m before it produces a single watt.
@@Richardincancale Thank you for an attempt on education. I am a professional electrical engineer with over 40 years of experience in design/constriction of the power power plants of all kind. Plus transmission lines. Your message shows that you have no idea about the cost of construction: building a fossil-fuel plant within one time increment cost much LESS than installing an equal generation capacity in 20-23 phases. But the most important is that you are trying to change the topic, by ignoring the fact that electricity produced by "renewable" source is still 4.5 - 6.5 times more expensive. Where is your answer to the question: how could people afford to pay for such super expensive energy? Do you PERSONALLY agree to have your taxes raised by 2-3 times to pay for that?
@@Richardincancale to continue on this topic (read my first reply first): the world largest manufacturer of the electrical power equipment - Siemens AG - has been desperately trying to sell its wind-turbine manufacturing divisions for the last 1.5 years. Why? Because the European countries, which had been super-entusiastic about wind power, finally realized that they simply don't have money to continue to subsidize this business.
And I know Siemens very well, as it has been my major competitor for the last 15 years. The people at the top of the company are extremally knowledgeable about their business and are very good at analyzing the perspectives. BTW, I don't know where you live, but in the US it takes only 2 years to build and commission a combined-cicle gas combustion plant with output of 1,050 MVA (1,050,000 KVA) (my latest project)
@@arney444 I also worked in the electricity industry for a national utility with both renewable and fossil sources. The cost of renewables is now well below fossil fuel. “For the last 13 to 15 years, renewable power generation costs from solar and wind power have been falling. Between 2010 and 2022, solar and wind power became cost-competitive with fossil fuels even without financial support. The global weighted average cost of electricity from solar PV fell by 89 per cent to USD 0.049/kWh, almost one-third less than the cheapest fossil fuel globally. For onshore wind the fall was 69 per cent to USD 0.033/kWh in 2022, slightly less than half that of the cheapest fossil fuel-fired option in 2022.” - IRENA.
Thank you Rosie, extremely clear and informative but as to your last point for consistency in messaging. Unfortunately when governments et. al. give a diktat and a lie then when the truth sinks in there will obviously be reversals and back pedaling. The UK have been old that we HAVE to be zero carbon and that renewables are UNDENIABLY cheaper and will create masses of UK jobs. That failed bidding process alone should put this in some doubt. These jobs will actually just add to a massively over inflated public sector making our energy industry an immensely costly addition to our civil service paid for by taxes and poverty inducing energy costs (in turn destroying local production and economies).
There is a place for these projects in our energy mix but there needs to be more honesty about the challenges and the costs of the unpredictability (helped by offshore), transmission infrastructure, storage, back-ups, environmental impact to birds and sea-life and decommissioning costs and impacts.
Then we can talk honesty about the pace and cost of investment. It may well be different elsewhere but in the UK we are being told that we must do this AT ANY COST as apparently the global sustainability of the planet hinges on our 1% (and falling) of Global emissions as once we cripple ourselves economically the rest of the world will apparently follow us into the wilderness.
Sorry to unload Rosie you do great work but unfortunately the engineering and many other points you make so well have to be viewed through an unfavorable political lens.
As a UK taxpayer how does importing £100+ billion of "cheap" foreign energy help the UK? Hinckley point C got £100 a Mwh for EDF and French taxpayers
Rhorough and knowledgeable. Thank you
Could it be meaningful to rinse off salt dust periodically to reduce corrosion? I mean, as long as the nacelle is well over 10 meters over the sea level a vacuum pump and a cold trap is all that would be needed to distill water. And when air temperatures up there is well below the ocean water temperature no external energy would be required to power the distillation process.
Thanks
Thank you!
You neglect to mention that most equipment, blades, turbines, etc. come from China where they get 70% of their energy from coal. Similarly for solar panels. So, the costs for “clean” energy are much higher.
True. I guess we also have to factor in how much renewable energy is used to produce mining equipment and to power the mining operations for fossil fuels over time. If a turbine has an expected lifetime of say 10 years (this is an example, I don’t know the real world figure) we can factor how much co2 was needed to produce it and compare to 10 years of building and operating the mining and operation of a fossil fuel energy plant(coal, gas). I wonder how that would stack up. 😅
You do know that China has installed more renewable generation in the last couple of years than the rest of the world combined ?
china is also fastest in incresing renewable.
Hi Rosie, thanks for another interesting and informative video! @11:19 you briefly mention energy storage in connection with offshore wind pg. As a possible solution, this might be achieved with local to offshore wind turbines by having offshore pumped storage hydroelectricity. The way pumped hydro might work offshore is by having an undersea chamber, (or series of chambers) submerged at a certain depth. As power is generated by the wind turbines, water is pumped out of the chambers and replaced with air, creating a storage of gravitational energy potential. When power is required, the chambers could be reflooded, and the transfer of air/water used to drive similar machinery (hydro turbine). The process seems pretty straight forward, combining different elements of existing technologies, making it cheap to implement and convenient to locate. Contrary to expectation, I have not heard or seem much about such an energy storage technology, which could potentially ratchet up to advantages and possibilities for expanded offshore wind prospects. I was wondering if the idea sounds interesting to you and if so, would be willing render some pros and cons?
Outstanding informative video. I’d love another video about floating offshore wind.
Other than it not being true: Only offshore wind is in Europe in VERY shallow seas, with base mounts which are NOT present anywhere else in the world other than a reef somewhere maybe. Using Lazards GUESS is absurd unless you think you can get away with it as you are talking to complete ignorants on the topic. Also the oil and gas offshore infrastructure is right there in the North sea whereas VAST majority of coast line where there is wind will have ZERO or near zero naval capability to build in the ocean with the sole exception being the Gulf of Mexico, or Persian gulf, both of which have ~zero wind so one CANNOT double use the existing infrastructure defraying costs. Offshore therefore is ALWAYS projected to cost at MINIMUM 3X if not 4X onshore anywhere else in the world not named(North Sea). Its a joke.
@@w8stralEast and Southeast Asia has pretty good capacity for steel fabrication and ship building. With fixed turbines already a common sight in Taiwan as the first mover in Asia and in progress for Vietnam and Philippines. Japan and Korea only have small area for fixed base but they're already starting, their big rollout however has to be floating due to water depths
@@w8stralcry me a river.
@@w8stral ' Only offshore wind is in Europe in VERY shallow seas' If you wish to make absolutist claims, check your data: ' The 11 Siemens Gamesa 8.0-167 DD wind turbines will be moored at a site 140 km offshore where winds are consistently stronger in water depths of up to 300 metres.' This is Hywind's floating turbine array.
It is admittedly modest, but so is everything initially.
You just made my point for me.. Only in very shallow seas with oil and gas infrastructure all around saving half the up front cost and they have great wind resources. No other region of the world has this other than Patagonia minus the naval assets. And those 11 turbines are a trial to see what the costs are as they have no idea. Claiming they will be great and cost effective is a nice joke. Good one. @@davidmartin3947
Thank you for this! I work in clean energy policy and starting to learn a lot more about offshore. This was the perfect intro video.
Offshore wind has the benefit of working as a transition option. Infrastructure, like ports and ships and workers can be repurposed from fossil extraction to building renewables. And the inherent "big project nature" with centralization, large investments, complex legal matters is perfectly tailored for those companies that previously build coal, oil and gas plants.
Transition to what?????
@@thamesmud
Poverty ?
With my fuel costs doubled to solve a
non existent problem ......
Awesome! Rosie for PM!
A breath of fresh air. Thanks, Rosie.
For onshore wind farms in Europe, the issue is not only the availability of space, but also whether it is possible to get to where the wind is. You can't simply flatten a forest or a village to transport +25m long blades. So the cost of construction in the US is irrelevant to Europe because they have a lot of flat wasteland on the plains. Where the plots have almost no value compared to land in Europe.
I'm interested in Japanese offshore wind so I am looking forward to the floating turbine video.
Thanks Rosie, really informative. It would be very interesting to see the comparison of dollars of energy generated between onshore and offshore wind turbines given the production graphs you showed. Especially given the massive daily price fluctuations.
Why are they buiring 1000s of tons of F/G blades in landfills ? & Whos going to remove these Navigation dangers when there life span is up
"Navigation dangers"? Flying below 500 meters is criminal.
@@pear7777 Shipping ,Though the deaths of birds are a worry . Last report there is up to 6 million , Yes million tons of F/G blades coming up to there use by date this year , Good for the environment ????
Excellent as always
A question to the Engineer. When calculations of cost/MWh are made. Does that include how long they will last? Today a Nuclear power can very well live on for 80 years, tecnicaly for ever since every components can be swapped out in many cases. And better design is coming all the time. A wind farm live for 25- 35 years. In reality much less. Then it has to be demolished and replaced. So you have to build the wind farm many times as the reactor keep running. Costs of maintenance has to be included. But do they consider cost of grid building is much higher for the wind farms then the nuclear plant. And then you need baseload for the grid. And you need additional power often fossils when the wind or sun is not there. In Sweden we have long cold winters, not much sun or wind the coldest period and then the need for energy is peaking. So you get additional casts for wind and sun. And finally nuclear tend to deliver over 90% of running time. Wind and solar obviously much less. Resulting in energy when no one need it and no energy when needed. Toxic waste in nature from the blades, dead birds and big impact on nature is other wind energy-costs. The wind-solar alternative come with a terrible need for area and material, when a nuclear plant is very much the opposite. My impression is that calculations are maybe not made with realistic data. Politics often sounds very naive when speaking or at least very biased. Making bad investments is just bad, and we see a lot of that. And no atoimc waste is not a big danger, and it is relative very safe. The use of coal is killing so many more, right? We must see things for what they are. If we wan't to do good. .
For every windmill, they need a full backup system to produce when the wind isn't blowing. So you really need 2 systems. For a nuclear plant, the grid will cost about the same as the plant. For windmill farms and distributed production, the grid will cost twice as much as the windmills. Windmills at sea will probably last less then 10 years.
China is burning 4.5 billion tons of coal each year - what about that? Anyway, the ocean will eat all excess CO2 anyway. We are dealing with a rediciliouss doomsday sect here - don't try to make sense of anything.
The timescale for finance and implementation is a critical problem for some nuclear power in Europe. Perhaps the offshore electrons can be seen as a bridging supply technology before other fabled systems appear at commercial scale? Fusion, Thorium reactors etc...By the next century (if humans ever get there) the polar regions may become colder and drier overall due to the slowing global sea currents (currently observed), the tropics possibly uninhabitable in parts. The CO2 hangs around a long time: 'Once it’s added to the atmosphere, it hangs around, for a long time: between 300 to 1,000 years. Thus, as humans change the atmosphere by emitting carbon dioxide, those changes will endure on the timescale of many human lives'. science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/greenhouse-gases/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/
@@JHawkins-jf6bs RE: CO2 hangs around a long time
That's pure hogwash. The air is in chemical equilibrium with the ocean. If we doubled the concentration in the air by tomorrow, most of this doubling would be eaten by the sea within 1 year, and almost all (98%) within 5 years.
If we remove all CO2 from the air tomorrow, most will be back within 1 year, and 98% within 5 years.
The ocean is leaking CO2 as hell, but when the pressure between the air and ocean is in equilibrium, the leak will stop. If the pressure in the air is higher, the ocean will immediately start eating CO2.
We do not have a CO2 problem whatsoever. It is pure fantasy. No CO2 problem whatsoever in any case.
Solar power, when used as agrivoltaics, removes much of the land area conflict.
Engineer is still silent. Just another thing. Battery cost and solar panels are diving like crazy in her graph. So then consumer prizes should be really low now. No they are not. A new EV costs like a small house. And another thing wind turbine blades spreads tons and tons of microplastics over the crops, into fishing waters. This is a biased channel as you could expect. She says energy storage will be solved in the future. Well, we do this in the future instead, okay? No, it is not just windmills are ugly. There are so much more. A blip in history. No the green scam is the blip in history. But prove me I am wrong please.
So basically renewable offshore generation is expensive. The latest auction failed because the companies wanted more minimum payments. In south of England already agreed projects were cut back because of visible farms in the channel
Indeed.. I am very doubtful that there are any offshore projects that are making decent money..
@@NiklasLarssonSeglarfan You are wrong! They make a lot of money! Governmental money. Taxpayers money. Out of your pocket.
@@yurialtunin9121 actually , I don't think many of them even turn a profit with government money 🫣
Slightly odd to put the UK in the category of countries not as blessed as Denmark with offshore wind resource when its coastal waters typically experience 10%-15% higher average wind speeds.
yes that's fair, UK is pretty blessed also!
"Blessed"?
Even in Denmark with its Energy TRANSITIONAL bliss, not 100 % of energy is renewable. Simply because 20 % of time wind is too weak to generate any electricity and 10 % of time wind is too strong. So they have to fire gas. Making its wind investment absolutely useless. Whats a point of investing into wind if you still have to maintain THE SAME CAPACITY of traditional sources?
Terrific as usual. This stuff is so important as we heat up from carbon burning. Lead time is needed. The little goofy sail boat could be better but we can't have everything. 😀
No we need fusion and now not polluting the ocean with more oil trash.
Hi Rosie, I worked as a draughtsman dealing primarily with steel ship construction. The monopile and jacketed structure options puzzle me. We can build ships out of steel because we can pull them out of the water/drydock them to paint them every now and then, otherwise corrosion will chew away the structure once the paint system is compromised, which always happens sooner or later. Given all the other difficulties that have to be dealt with at great expense to get offshore wind turbines to work, it would be sensible to seek the longest possible lifespan. I would have thought the mere idea of fixing a steel structure in place like that so that it cannot be maintained, and then parking a very expensive wind turbine on top would be enough to give any seasoned engineer palpitations.
Keep in mind the oil and gas sector has used the same fixed offshore installation concepts for years.
Anodes and ICCP systems exist, and you can add corrosion allowance to the design.
I am affraid it is wishfull thinking. Nobody cares about any "sensibility" of wind farms. They idea is to take money as governments are stupid enough to pay ... and run away. Rosie is clever and wonderful, but she is on the wrong course.
Love your work and integrity 👏 👍 😊
Very helpful, thanks
Thanks Rosie. Looks like the 'economical unsustainability' of offshore wind is just a commercial glitch. I was thinking recently about when offshore wind blows (largely driven by sunrise/sunset?) and how it aligns well with domestic consumption, which should reduce the demand on storage. Maybe the LCOE should be commuted to the consumer cost to factor in aspects like storage & even energy supplier markups (which home generation doesn't have).
So here in Ireland we have the most expensive electricity in Europe....that's what happened when you have to build and maintain two generating systems the so called renewables and the fossil fuel plants..
Start building offgrid power, then. For domestic use. The high prices you mention is probably due to the regulatory regime.
All this approach needs to become a real tool for tackling the climate crisis is to use the time it gives us to build a lot more nuclear power to take over from it for the long term future 👍
Nuclear power is really the only true answer to the climate crisis.
I agree but nuclear needs to go a lot cheaper before it can compete with coal. I believe the wind resource is large enough to undermine the whole fossil fuel industry
@@mikefallwell1301 Yep unfortunately that is the big catch 22 with current nuclear power and how it is right now. It needs to become cheaper to compete with other forms of power generation, in order to become used more and widely adopted. But it needs to be become prevalent and used more, in order to hit economies of scale, which will make building them cheaper...🤨
Well this and all the scaremongering are the two big things hold nuclear power back.
Lots of people in the UK rubbish nuclear for being too expensive, but a strike price of £77/MWh for wind must compare badly with £90/MWh for nuclear once you add in storage?
And the reliable availability 24/7 52 weeks of the year. No hot standby needed either.
Standby is needed for wind power.
i guess you missed some costs as well. what is about the build of the power plant, the cost to store of waste nuclear material
@@imtheeastgermanguy5431
Go for Thorium and there is very minimum waste .
But those huge turbine blades were supposed to last 25 years ,
in reality they are done for in about 5 years.
We are still learning on this
Wind farms generally stay on budget due to the relatively simple nature of the project. Nuclear goes 2 to 3 times over budget and over schedule and are then paid out by taxpayers or energy users. Same is true for modern large fossil fueled plants, just to a slightly lesser extent.
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
Yes Rosie is clearly impartial and independent and can be relied on to take an unbiased look at the topic. So what that she has made her living from offshore wind for the last 20 years, obviously that has no bearing at all on the position she takes.
The aspect to focus on is that in North Sea, particularly off Scotland, developers were building wind power plants
with No subsidies, a couple years ago (before inflation changed the situation).
Yes that's a good perspective to keep in mind, but typically engineers of her caliber do not need to rely on a specific industry to be lucratively employed.
How do you suggest a person gains professional expertise in a field without actually working in that field?
To reduce corrosion, why not use Bell Lab's 'Intercept Technology' to sacrificially remove corrosive ions from trapped airspace?
Great video thanks.
Clean air is a good thing. We don’t account for the actual cost of fossil fuels.
So, let me get this straight. Offshore wind will use oilfield tech to deploy massive structures in deeper waters and be serviced by men in helicopters which will cost twice as much as other available sources of energy for similar regions. Sounds like a winner.🏆
On a sustained basis, the cost of wind (and solar) is actually *_infinite._*
@@aliendroneservices6621 Planned obsolescence...?
Also, needs to be noted that a 5 megawatt wind-turbine uses 700 L plus per year for lubrication of the gearing parts.
It’s always surprising that the big oil companies research on climate change let’s them make windturbines…
@@bakker071 No surprise really. They not surprisingly just follow the money or more aptly, the gravy train of 70% governmental subsidies including overgenerous tariffs snd even payments for when national grid doesn't draw in
In Sweden region 3 and 4 had an average price of 0,64SEK/kWh. In the same period windturbines sold electricity on average for 0,26SEK/kWh. Atleast here too many winturbines produce electricity when demand is low while beeing aunable to produce while demand is high. There were days when price was 8SEK/kWh and windturbines produced 0 electricity. Meanwhile when winturbines produce electricity the national production goes up 20% and price drops to levels where it's not profitable to operate them. Here discussions about windturbines is if any of them are profitable at all (here).
Much better to go with high density energy production from nuclear fission.
Rosie run the total numbers on the alternate choices.
Yes I know doing nothing and climate destabilisation is more expensive.
A nuclear industry world is dangerous to military defence budgets.
Sodium batteries and newer, cheaper batteries are important technologies must be considered.
Everything we do, negatively affects the environment, EVERYTHING!!!!!!
Of course. But some things do so MUCH MUCH more than others, and offshore wind is environmentally the least harmful way to generate a watt of electricity of all.
That realization is One of several justifications for the degraded state of U.S. infrastructure.
Sure, even ecosystem restoration projects. We can do better.
Thank you Rosie!
One comment about the USA - they can't use European ships to install wind turbines there as ships have to be built in US (quirky old law) - which also delayed projects.
It's called the Jones Act of 1920.
U.S.A. should lose the Jones Act. At least initially, allow those robust Europeans demonstrate how their investments
proved offshore wind affordable.
I am not particularly a fan of wind turbines on or off-shore. Nuclear is more energy dense and cleaner. Off-shore turbines still leak oil and require more maintenance. If there are any effects to underwater tonal sonic disruption, it is ignored. Off-shore wind raises residential rates. There is also a call to ban offshore monopiles.
Mining the fuel for fission, is far from clean!!
Hi. "Clean" just doesn't exist in energy generation. At best we can categorise ito clean categories. Wind is only clean ito generation output (no fossil fuel gases etc.). However, just like nuclear energy, it takes a lot of dirty mining and manufacturing to get the plants producing. They also have their own unique waste disposal challenges. Here in SA we are blessed with one of the most stable geological tectonic plates on the planet, so we just put the longlife isotope waste in concrete encased steel canisters deep underground. But wind turbines kill millions of birds every year especially critical migratory pollinating birds, as well as predatory birds that control vermin and pests which destroy agricultural production. And what to do with tons of unusable fibreglass turbine blades? I've seen one such blade graveyard. It is monstrously ugly and toxic to the environment if not carefully designed and protected.
Good grief. You should be banned from commenting.
The problem with off shore wind power is visual pollution and like their land counterpart they can not be recycled. Thank you.
True the blades are not recyclable, but just about every other part is. Vestas the wind turbine manufacturer claims their different models are 80 to 86% recyclable.
Build them far enough away and you can't even see them. Also, many people find them beautiful. Not everyone thinks they are ugly. I'd certainly rather look at wind turbines than cooling towers of coal and gas plants.
Concerning visual aspects... It is prudent to build a lot of this stuff, but Do Not build continuous expanses. That is,
allow considerable visual Space between components of the arrays, so that those who resent the turbine arrays can
look seaward 'here and there' without viewing an endless image of windmills.
What about the Whales ?
@@budbud2509Indeed and the other wild life.
Thank you for the informative video.
Have you thought of doing a video on the importance of inter country interconnectors?. Here in Northern Europe there is a phenomenon known as "Dunkelflaute" which basically means no wind and no sun. Quite common in winter, lasting typically 3-5 days with a fairly strong correlation over Europe. So, interconnectors in the same time zone don't guarantee black outs. Unless of course we keep dozens of gas plants runnning all over Europe. Our UK government is targeting 40Gw of storage output, which is huge. But they havent said for how long?. (i.e. how many Gwhrs ). The 40Gw of storage output, is about a third of projected winter demand, so to cover a 1/3rd of such demand during a Dunkelflaute would need about 6Twh. On current containerised lithium density that would require 5,000,000 acres or 7,800 square miles. Conveniently about the size of Wales. A countryside littered with 20ft containers. Or will fusion save us all
Yes, northwest Europe has a particular problem with winter anticyclonic highs - it is probably the part of the world where building a completely renewable grid is toughest. If nuclear is cost-competitive anywhere it should be there. Though as Rosie points out, there are relatively nearby parts that do not suffer as much from dunkelflauten - ie the North Sea. Plus as you point out big interconnectors with sunnier climes, ideally in different time zones, help.
Also an illustration of how the so called economics of renewable energy is dependent on govt. decisions , not just supposedly objective market conditions. Also raises the question of whether these govts. , the Tories in England for instance are really trying to bring in renewables or just look like they are.
Cost per kWh should be based upon 'feed in', not 'produced' or 'capacity'. A lot of green energy is sent to ground because it doesn't match need.
Well, who should pay for production when the wind isn't blowing? We need energy/electricity even when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining. Who should produce then, and who should pay? We need to pay for all 3 systems?
The omission of the new grid costs in each solution, and the future expansion in 100% electric world can not give the best choice.
Expensive storage is built into the EV battery.
Utilization factor can be maximum if used.
Selfplug-in V2G EVs will be the favourite feature. 24/7 Utilization.
😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
Good thing Denmark has an interconnect with France!
And the UK too!
Actually, heard it is linked to Norway with loads of hydro. Match each other well and close by.
What a surprise they already thought of that.
@@lawrenceheyman435the Uk has links to Norway, Denmark, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Ireland. And one is in planning with Morocco. And I hear rulers about one with North America, which is actually about the same distance as Morocco. Though that is only to NE Canada- it will still need to go quite a way more to any population centres.
@bertiesmith3021 look at a map, which is closer to Denmark?
Also by your logic, the UK is being backed by all of the above - lucky you. It's not a one way street
Another great video Rosie. Very informative. It's such a shame to see this resource not yet being taken advantage along the Victorian and NSW coasts. Concerted anti-wind farm campaigns from big and small media and local NIMBYs are really disappointing. Hopefully this all gets resolved soon and we can start producing clean energy from offshore wind in Australia.
Excellent information as always. Thanks!
Very clear explanation and slick presentation. I would love every village to have a sandbattery and district heating linked to renewables
Sorry, what is “the crisis?” Besides the fast rate of speaking and a few charts, (had to use CC to read the content), explaining engineering and environmental details, I concluded offshore wind farms are productive, profitable, reliable and sustainable. Did I miss something?
What I got is the are real bad for the environment. Especially to maintain.
It seems to me that a quantified way of comparing the demand by time of day, with the production by time of day, is pretty essential to have conversations that are productive. LCOE seems like a nearly useless measure, when talking about renewables (or any source that you can't turn on or off at will...but that's essentially renewables).
So, in the USA consumer electricity costs £0.17 (GBP / KW Hour). In the UK the consumer electricity costs £0.45 GBP/Kw Hour). So as the UK adds more and more off-shore windmils (way above the 'average country'), the unit cost of electricity, to the consumer, keeps on increasing. Many businesses have had to leave the UK because of uneconomic electricity costs. This has reduced the number of highly paid jobs and injected serious structural weaknesses into the economy. It looks like the UK tax payer is heavily subsidising the offhore wind industry, at considerable cost.
Yet LCOE of offshore wind is 6-12p/kWh, and the current price of electricity is usually set by the incremental cost of gas as the last entrant to the market. Yet, somehow you aren't arguing against gas, almost as if you have an agenda.
If you're paying 45p/kWh then you need to change your provider. Electricity is half that in the UK! Electricity prices are tied to wholesale gas prices, which spiked after Covid, and with the war in Ukraine shutting off Russian gas to Europe. If we wean ourselves off gas, we will pay much lower prices as we don't have to tie the price to it.
As for reducing highly paid jobs... I don't have any figures (nor have you provided any sources for such a claim), but the east coast towns that were formerly fishing and steel towns (Grimsby, Hull, Sunderland etc) are seeing a resurgence with the offshore wind industry.
Being self-reliant on renewables, as well as providing long-term skilled employment the length of the land, can only be good for the country, no?
Great video
"There is no free lunch"
What is the impact of disrupting the natural widflow on a massive scale?
When humans 1st developed the gas engine, we all thought it was harmless. Because we didn't know about the impact of CO2. We didn't consider it on a large scale.
Could we be making the same mistake with wind and solar?
Certainly there is some effect, but it's several orders of magnitude (ie. hundreds or thousands of times) smaller than that of greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels for energy, and therefore vastly preferable.
Co2 is the life of everything it's at 0.04% and people make only a very small fraction of that.
This channel is a great find. Thanks for making such informative and well presented videos. Subbed! 👍
Wind power is great as long as you like unpredictable electricity that costs a fortune.
Wind doesn't cost a mere fortune. Wind, like solar, is *_infinitely-expensive,_* on a sustained basis.
On shore wind and solar are the cheapest sources of power available except for hydro. Since hydro is limited by geography for most on shore wind and solar is simply the cheapest source of electricity. Even with storage they are cheaper than other none carbon emitting sources like nuclear.
@@matthewhuszarik4173bring forth the source
Not only money costs. The famous Texas cold snap (happened due to rely on renewables) killed six times MORE people than the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986.
Rosie, Hope the subsequent Floating Platform Offshore Wind post. Will include a section on the possibility of it also generating electricity from secondary power sources, such as from wave energy, not only from wind?
Which would also reduce the correlation of the power output. Increasing its marginal value. And reducing the need for storage for the grid.
Seems like a natural synergy. That would also reduce the need for energy storage for the grid.
Has a submerged floating island, as a platform for numerous wind turbines, ever been considered or tried? Possibly out of a calcium carbonate CO2 sequestering, air infused material? Seems like it would also have environmental benefits too, in terms of attracting sea life too?
What about the cost to remove the wind turbine when it's no longer in service? How much does that cost? And who pays for it? Or are the farms just left to corrode for centuries in the sea?
I still don't understand that some people are positive on electricity prices remaining stable or even dropping, when the investments for installed capacity, grid infrastructure, stability control and storage need to be done. I might be wrong but as most companies that are investing in these sectors, are for profit with shareholders, they will want to make good profit quite quickly.
A mainly renewable energy grid is possible but what will the cost be for the consumer and industry?
It is *_not_* possible to power a country with wind-and-solar.
I learned a LOT watching your video. Thank you.
Superb video. I still don't fully understand how cost is such a barrier for offshore wind (or onshore+stotage) when electricity from coal, nuclear or gas peaker plants is more expensive, even before considering the externalities of climate and air pollution, which for coal in particular are huge.
Lazards figures are based on NEW builds. Now if you already have a Coal Power Station sitting on top of a Coal mine then the cost to produce is far far lower as the capital cost has been paid off. I think Lazards do cover this in a few figures and its down at $ 24/MWH ie Very cheap and very reliable.
The Renewables are cheaper than Fossil Fuels comment uses Lazards and like with like ie New Builds. A different debate when replacing existing already built Power Stations.
@TimMountjoy-zy2fd For sure the internal cost of maintaining existing coal power plants is lower. But we're still building new coal, gas and nuclear plants around the world, which makes me wonder why the cost of offshore wind is such a stumbling block. Plus, according to Our World in Data, there are 25 air pollution deaths per TWh from coal electricity. If you assume the value of statistical life is 10 million dollars (a standard economic figure), then the external cost due to air pollution alone (not including climate change or running costs) is about 250 dollars a megawatt hour.
The price cap for UK offshore wind (£77/MWh) is a sleight of hand, as this value in 2012 money. Inflation to 2024 money values adds about 30% and it is more correct to use 2024 price cap in 2024 money values, and that's £100/MWh.
The energy market doesn't want intermittent sources of electricity, but values firm on-demand supply. We cannot run a modern economy using wind alone, for electricity generation. We therefore have to consider wind power only as a supplement to something else which satisfies the firmness requirement of power supply to consumers. The "something else" is most likely going to be significantly fossil fuelled as it has to cater for all of the demands of supplying power and balancing the network in periods when wind generation is contributing little or nothing, In this context, we have to ask the question: does intermittent and unpredictable power at £100/MWh reduce or increase the total cost of supply of firm electricity? Invariably, it increases the cost. Firstly, because at £100/MWh it is much more expensive than fossil fuelled power (without "carbon taxes" to hamper the economics of fossil fuelled electricity). And secondly because of all the infrastructure and balancing costs of accommodating these intermittent sources.
It is no coincidence that the more renewable power that is added to an electricity network, the higher customer tariffs to recover the total cost. It is no surprise that wind generation only exists through government-sponsored subsidy contracts. The stand-alone private investment case doesn't exist.
Any environmental impact studies looking at migratory birds and sea farer birds?
The faster the blades, the more the power the deadlier to birds
Rosie, given you work in the industry I hardly expect you to rubbish this intermittent and completely unreliable power source. For renewables to work you require a backup power source such as gas, coal, nuclear and hydro. This means you need 2 grids to pay for, that’s why we are experiencing huge power bills. When the sun sets and the wind does not blow for several days this means a 100% power delivery failure from renewables when the sun sets. RENEWABLES are completely useless. Nuclear is the only tech that gives you net zero by 2050 and a nuclear power plant lasts 4 times longer than any solar panel or wind turbine. Replacing renewables 4 times over the life of a nuclear reactor makes nuclear a fraction of the cost. Every country that went more than 30% renewables failed due to power delivery instability. The countries that are close to 100% renewable are amongst the poorest countries. Prove me wrong.
The voice of one crying in the wilderness !!! I still have a hope that wind turbine infrastructure will be reused one day. For floating nuclear power plants. Like MIT Dr.Buongiorno project or Seabord project in Denmark.
Anything/ any cost.. rather than reliable base load.. Gen 4 nuclear…
How about building an offshore-ready windfarm near the coast, and wait for sea level rise to take it off shore?
That strategy seems consistent with most major govts sense of urgency over climate change. 😮
Governments are not fooled by their own scaremongering.
Your question? NO. Like other large scale renewables It is not sustainable, not environmentally friendly, far from emissions free to procedure, among many others.
What they do have is the potential to make big bucks
I still believe we need to oversubscribe for moving to overcapacity of solar and using more decentralized distribution.
Yes I agree and I have a video roughly planned out about why it's good to overbuild renewables . But I don't think it will reduce the need for wind and offshore much as solar power is just so correlated.
I have a rather interesting concept, why not build out solar to follow the rotation of the earth, making it easier to reach overall capacities.@@EngineeringwithRosie
@@ksairman intercontinental HVDC lines will play an important role in that
cover all the electricity needs with minimal yields - and transcontinental HVDC connections of course - and use all the excess energy to make green H2, we'll be needing a LOT of that
Certainly nobody has ever complained about having too much energy available any more than they'd complain about their car's engine being too powerful.
I like decentralization of such things, which, with an excess of production capacity, protects against disasters, both natural and man-made.
Fantastic report. Learnt heaps.
I remember being told that few offshore oil rigs were terrible for the ocean ecosystem. How does having hundreds of times more offshore wind towers have no effect?
@sta “'Thrown to the wind' - are wind farms really killing whales?”
potholer54
[Short answer: Of course not! The causes of known whale deaths are mostly ship collisions & entanglement in fish nets. Know what would eliminate 40% of world shipping? That’s right, GETTING RID OF FOSSIL FUELS!]
40% of global shipping is just moving fossil fuels around.
And as potholer points out, changing the methods & equipment used by fishing ships would reduce whale deaths, too. So would people eating fewer fish, just like eating fewer cows, pigs, chickens, & water buffalo would lead to less deforestation, ocean dead zones, & mass bird deaths caused by habitat loss, toxicity, the insect apocalypse…
Oil spills, oil pits, coal & oil air pollution, coal sludge ponds, fracking & flaring kill billions of birds every year. Many times more than wind turbines per KWh.
New York canceling offshore wind projects might have something to do with the success of the city of Montreal just a few hundred km to the north being able to be at 100% renewable for electricity generation with the price that people pay on their bills being about a third of what New Yorkers pay, because of the use of a better form of renewable.