Thar She Blows
Despite some theoretically advantageous attributes, we find scant evidence to support the often-claimed that “utility-scale wind turbines provide one of the lowest-priced energy sources available.
Thar She Blows
FEB 15, 2023
∙ PAID
“The older you get the stronger the wind gets - and it's always in your face.” – Pablo Picasso
Up until the late 19th century, whale oil was a prized commodity used for illumination and machine lubrication. Demand for the valuable liquid, obtained by processing whale blubber, had grown so rapidly that the giant mammals were nearly hunted out of existence. At its apex, whaling was estimated to be the fifth-largest industry in the US, employing approximately 70,000 people.
The unofficial global capital of the whaling industry was once Nantucket, the tiny but wealthy island off the coast of Cape Cod, Massachusetts. To this day, the island’s culture remains centered around the iconic whale. Nantucket High School’s mascot is Hank the Harpoon Man, and the town is home to the Nantucket Historical Association Whaling Museum, a must-visit stop for the many tourists who descend upon the island each summer. The highlight of the museum’s collection is the skeleton of a 46-foot male sperm whale, described as “perhaps the most dramatic installation of a whale skeleton ever displayed.”
Not surprisingly, locals along the Atlantic Coast are quite passionate about preserving the whales that remain, and a recent spike in whale strandings is pitting several small grassroots organizations against powerful national environmental groups, federal and state governments, and the wind industry. Locals are convinced the burgeoning offshore wind industry is to blame for the deaths, and they have been spurred into action. One relatively new non-profit – Nantucket Residents Against Turbines – is even suing various federal agencies to put a halt to the Vineyard Wind offshore wind project, arguing that allowing the project to proceed “will exacerbate threats to the North Atlantic Right Whale which has a population of fewer than 360 individuals.” Here’s how NPR recently framed the developing controversy around whale deaths (emphasis added throughout):
“Researchers are trying to figure out a mystery: Why are so many humpback whales, right whales, and other large mammals dying along the U.S. East Coast? One possible explanation is a shift in food habits. And while theories are circulating that blame the growing offshore wind industry, scientists say there's no proof to support that idea.
Since Dec. 1, at least 18 reports have come in about large whales being washed ashore along the Atlantic Coast, according to the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. The losses are hitting populations that were already under watch, due to ongoing rises in unexpected deaths.”
In stark contrast to the treatment given to the fossil fuel and nuclear energy industries by government regulators, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has an entire Frequently Asked Questions page where it confidently and definitively absolves the wind industry of any and all potential blame. Here’s a sampling:
“Is U.S. offshore wind development linked to any whale deaths?
No. At NOAA Fisheries, we work with our partners to analyze and understand the causes of death when we are able, following the science and data. At this point, there is no evidence to support speculation that noise resulting from wind development-related site characterization surveys could potentially cause mortality of whales. There are no specific links between recent large whale mortalities and currently ongoing surveys for offshore wind development. We will continue to gather data to help us determine the cause of death for these mortality events.”
While we have no particularly strong view as to the cause of these whale deaths (and any such assessment would be beyond our team’s expertise), we highlight this thorny issue – and the obvious political hypocrisies it reveals – to emphasize once again that when it comes to the so-called green energy transition, there are no solutions, only tradeoffs. Although President Biden has set an incredibly ambitious goal of installing 30 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030, the industry itself is reeling from technology challenges, elevated feedstock inflation, and far more pushback from locals than many expected. How does wind energy compare to other energy resources available? Can the industry withstand the onslaught of opposition heading its way, or will the investments earmarked by the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act dissolve into just another government boondoggle? Let’s dig in.
We begin with the fundamental challenge plaguing wind technology: low energy density. Wind is dispersed and to harvest economically significant amounts of energy from it with any semblance of efficiency requires huge plastic composite blades that are designed to be both lightweight and exceptionally strong. The forces and material science challenges involved are substantial. Offshore wind blades now exceed 100 meters in length, and their tip speeds can surpass an incredible 200 miles per hour. The blades convert kinetic energy into rotational energy, which is then usually fed into a gearbox, which increases the rotational rotor speed. A generator is then used to produce electricity. Electrical, mechanical, and blade failures are common and expensive, as are the myriad ongoing servicing activities needed to maintain smooth operation. Confronting these fundamental limits of physics is challenging.
Wind energy technology does compare favorably to alternatives like solar in some respects. Although wind speeds are highly variable, the overall capacity factors achievable using wind are roughly double that of solar. While both technologies introduce significant intermittency into grid systems – the costs of which are conveniently ignored by their proponents – at least the wind can still blow at night. Further, the energy intensity of the materials needed to create wind turbines is far less than what’s involved in the production of ultrahigh-purity polysilicon, which means wind projects have far shorter energy payback periods, usually less than one year. On the other hand, solar arrays do not have much in the way of moving parts and produce direct current electricity from sunshine, greatly reducing the engineering challenges involved. Tradeoffs aplenty.
Despite some theoretically advantageous attributes, we find scant evidence to support the often-repeated claim that “utility-scale wind turbines provide one of the lowest-priced energy sources available today.” Such analyses almost always rely on borderline-fraudulent “levelized cost of electricity” measurements that are easily refuted by three simple observations: if wind were truly the cheapest form of energy available today, the industry would not require massive subsidies for its proliferation; even with significant government support, the wind value chain does not create economic value for most stakeholders; and finally, electricity grids with a high share of wind power invariably find themselves passing on higher costs to consumers.
The three-card monte game of hype surrounding wind can only hide the underlying fundamentals for so long, and the industry is beginning to come clean with investors. Wind manufacturing feedstock costs are highly correlated to the price of fossil fuels, and the energy crisis has taken its toll on the key players involved. Recently, GE’s renewable energy business booked a $2.2 billion loss for 2022, and other major participants are confessing similar fiascos:
“Charges unveiled by two offshore wind sector leaders highlight the challenges the fast-growing renewables industry is facing, ranging from quality issues to cost inflation, that are hitting profit outlooks.
Denmark's Orsted, the world's No. 1 offshore wind farm developer, late on Thursday announced a writedown on a large U.S. offshore wind project and an earnings forecast for 2023 that fell short of analyst estimates. Madrid-listed Siemens Gamesa, the world's biggest offshore wind turbine maker, reported a 472 million euro ($510 million) hit to operating profit due to faulty turbine components that require higher warranty and maintenance provisions.”
Beyond the economics of today, the industry is also facing the enormous challenge of what to do with the tens of thousands of blades nearing end-of-life status. The very toughness that is necessarily designed into these high-performance composites makes them nearly impossible to recycle. Crushing or repurposing them are not options, and while some researchers claim to have demonstrated chemical methods for depolymerizing the blades in the laboratory, no such process has been proven at an industrially relevant scale. We highly doubt we’ll see such demonstrations any time soon. Why? Unlike with solar panels or batteries, there are no valuable precious metals to be recovered during recycling, making all such processes both expensive and financially unrewarding (the basic chemicals that can be recovered have minimal economic value). Further exacerbating the problem is the fact that these composites do not biodegrade. The vast majority will remain buried in landfills effectively forever.
Because of these and other challenges, local opposition to wind developments has been far more fierce (and successful) than the media would have you believe. Fellow Substack author Robert Bryce has been tracking grassroots resistance to renewable energy plans since 2015. His database counts more than 370 successful rejections of wind energy projects over that period. He had this to share with us via private correspondence, which we reproduce here with his permission:
“I’ve interviewed people from all over the world about the encroachment of wind projects in their neighborhoods. They are fighting these projects because want to protect productive farmland. They are concerned about their viewsheds, property values, and the destruction of our wildlife, including bats, songbirds, and Bald and Golden Eagles. They don’t want to live amid 700-foot-high wind turbines and look at their red-blinking lights all night, every night, for the rest of their lives. They are also right to be concerned about the deleterious health effects that can be caused by prolonged exposure to noise pollution generated by wind turbines.
In two of the bluest states in America, New York and California, wind energy is so unpopular in rural areas that policymakers have passed rules that may allow the state to force local communities to accept wind (and solar) projects they do not want.”
For years, the professional environmental movement, led by deep-pocketed organizations like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, has perfected the art of using dubious propaganda, hyped-up environmental concerns, and nuisance lawsuits to impede all manner of traditional energy projects. Now, they find themselves complaining that those opposing wind energy are being unfair. Recently, a dozen New Jersey mayors and one congressman signed an open letter calling for a moratorium on all offshore wind activity until the recent burst of whale deaths can be better understood, and environmentalists are not happy about it. The irony is pretty thick:
“‘It’s just a cynical disinformation campaign,’ said Greenpeace’s oceans director John Hocevar. ‘It doesn’t seem to worry them that it’s not based in any kind of evidence.’”
We close by noting that it was the discovery of oil that ultimately led to the demise of the whaling industry a century and a half ago. With plentiful access to economically superior fuels, the business case for whale hunting collapsed, handing a miraculous reprieve to these majestic creatures. In the ultimate back-to-the-future moment, our rush to reject fossil fuels today is causing us to embrace technologies that may be putting them at risk again. With tens of billions of dollars in federal support earmarked for the wind industry and opposition stiffening, the stage looks set for a chaotic waste of taxpayer money.
Mark us firmly in the “boondoggle” camp.