Sign-In  or  Create a Free Account
Sign-in with:
 
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
 
Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Gamesa Scraps Wind Project Off Virginia Coast

Do you like this news?

 
 
9 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 9
May 9, 2012
Good news. It's a wasteful, unnecessary, subsidized idea that also places us at a global trade disadvantage or steel fabrication, rare-earth materials for generator magnets, etc.

Local solar on existing structures is already more efficient than any wind installation and makes the gird more robust & efficient as well. And present, horizontal-axis prop-generators are wasteful of more than just materials & transmission, they waste wind...
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/07/14/caltech-vertical-axis-wind-turbines-boost-wind-farm-power-efficiency-10x/
http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13430

Wind was a bad idea (except for some investors) in the '70s in Calif. and it's even sillier today, given 20% efficient PV at $1/Watt -- both numbers continually improving.

Decommissioning bond? what decommissioning bond?
http://webecoist.com/2009/05/04/10-abandoned-renewable-energy-plants/

Next wasteful target: Cape Wind!
Comment
2 of 9
May 9, 2012
Interesting link, but I had to fiddle with it to get it to work. Others should try this:

http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13430

The article talks about how more power can be extracted per unit area of land for vertical turbines.

But it leaves me wondering, as the article does not touch on the relative cost of the increased amount of machinery involved.

I suppose where land can be obtained cheaply (and unencumbered by setbacks or other regulations) it would not make the most economic sense, but in areas it might.
Comment
3 of 9
May 9, 2012
DrAlexC, I disagree with you. Its bad news. Sun and wind are our two most plentiful sources of energy. We should develop both. Fund the creative talent and subsidize their work so we develop alternatives for our growing energy needs. We need choices. The loss of the Gamesa project is a serious set back to Virginia's energy future. It would have attracted other possibilities to our state. States that create the right atmosphere will attract people and companies that will create jobs and invigorate their economy.
Comment
4 of 9
May 10, 2012
Bob & Dave, the issue is picking the best, long-term, least environmentally impactful power sources.

Wind/wave are inherently inefficient & demanding of large, high-maintenance, power-wasting systems. Subsidies have hidden that, but the realities have long been clear. Perhaps reading MacKay's "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air", or "The Wind Farm Scam" by Etherington will help.

The engineering reality is that windmills require ~700 tons of fossil-fuel-processed materials per MW of installed generation. Siemens & other data sheets disclose some of this burden. They also show limited wind speed ranges & idling power consumption. They don't usually show the permanent power loss due to transmission, or the overall maintenance costs, including insurance & decommissioning.

On those terms, wind 'farming', land or sea, has always failed. This stands to reason, since wind energy is derivative of solar input, but more variable & in fact subject to climate change, as the Chinese have already discovered -- can't move those 1000-ton foundations or 400-ton towers easily as winds fade in local regions.

However, solar PV is now falling below $1/Watt while yielding higher efficiency per acre. And, local solar needs no land. It has no species impacts. It has no large transmission losses. It adds reliability & security to the grid, and it conserves production energy & construction resources.

Even if the Caltech approach supplanted present windmill designs, solar PV's 2x and 4x efficiency improvements in the works, plus 0 land/sea consumption, make wind irrelevant.

Vestas has layoffs, this venture has failed, & others are tabled or cancelled. This is evidence of maturation in the investment & engineering communities, as unwarranted subsidies go away. The '70s saw similar here in Calif. but one subsidy was no obligation to state or counties to clean up. Same is often true today. http://tinyurl.com/dj2c5s
50MW/acre Nukes pay up front for cleanup.
No image available
Comment
5 of 9
Anonymous
May 10, 2012
Offshore wind is around 50% more expensive than onshore wind. Commercial onshore wind installations are well below $1/W, but PV solar is nowhere close to that.

As for Gamesa scrapping this Virginia offshore wind project, it's hard enough to make the economics of an onshore wind project pencil out in someplace like north Texas. A US offshore project in Virginia would never be profitable.
Comment
6 of 9
May 14, 2012
Great news. Now the sea live will be saved and no minke whales will beach. These industrial turbines are absolutely useless and how would backup occur if there was a calm day? Some people hear these things 20km away which I am no sure as to miles in length. When the wind industry wakes up to their big scams maybe people will live in peace. There are many other forms of renewable energy that supply electricity without the use of turbines made of CO2 emission materials and not destroying the environment.
Comment
7 of 9
May 14, 2012
Right on, Genie. We even have folks suggesting wind & wave offshore, to try to reduce variability, but the sites are right in the midst of whale migrations, undersea naval training and reserves. The machines would be cabled to the sea floor.

Problem is the same as with any subsidies -- they bring 'em all out of the woodwork looking for $ and hiding behind 'green-ness'.

By the way, Anonymous, "onshore wind installations are well below $1/W, but PV solar is nowhere close to that" -- is incorrect, which an advertizing former CIA guy should known up front! Current 20%-efficient PV panels are at $1/W and declining. Wind always has its up-front CO2 burden from ~700 tons per MW peak of fossil-fuel-processed materials -- 'minor' items like ~400 tons of steel/tower, ~5x that in coal, 1000 tons of concrete, needing limestone mining & kilning, plus aggregate mining/crushing, and concrete mixing & transport. Then there;s the road building, transmission building, clear cutting, insurance, maintenance, yadda, yadda. And, finally, the <30% duty cycle and the ~10% power loss in transmission/conversion. So onshore wind is not only inefficient, it's wasteful, forever.

It's worth anyone's time to read MacKay's "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air", or "The Wind Farm Scam" by Etherington.

Facts are troubling to some. Especially when they fear subsidy loss, when those paying the subsidy wake up.
Comment
8 of 9
May 18, 2012
Dr.A you don't mention the cost of CO2 in manufacturing PV. In your #7 post most all those burdens are required for commerical PV sites. What farmer could still use his fields if there were 100 acres used by PV's ?
Oh!, Dominion Va. Power is getting $50 million Fereral subsidies for the proposed gas fired plant north of Norfolk, Va. Let us not forget all of those subsidies the fossil fuel industries have received the last 100 years.
Comment
9 of 9
May 18, 2012
Sure, GW, even writing all these blog comments generates CO2 -- an email uses enough network, PC & server power to run an SUV down the block.

So PV is all about efficiency -- electrons out/second vs 1kW/sqm sunlight in. Present commercial cells give us 20% of that 1kW/sqm, and they cost 1kWHr/Watt to make.

Since efficiency is continually improving (military/space are at ~40%), there's nowhere to go but up with PV, by at least a factor of 2, with embedded energy going down & down.

So, there's really no competitive position for unsubsidized windmills. Not only do they demand about 700 tons/MW of fossil-fuel-processed materials, plus roads, lossy transmission lines, etc.,they can't extract even 50% of wind energy -- less than that because their wind-speed ranges are limited, missing the best winds and consuming grid power when idling. Wind is all about us all subsidizing a few investors & manufacturers.

PV is just like chips -- being commoditized. With no land required, no down payments, no maintenance fees, local solar is finally entering the realm of reality for most people & businesses -- even churches: http://tinyurl.com/3znad4b

Oh, and present windmill designs aren't even good ones...
http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13430
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Steve Leone

View Steve Leone's Profile
About: Steve Leone has been a journalist for more than 15 years and has worked for news organizations in Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia and California. more »

Advertise With Us

Rich Hessler Business Development Sunetric DNV KEMA Energy & Sustainability Intertek groSolar RevoluSun Array Technologies
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters