Offshore Wind in UK Cheaper than New Coal

April 6, 2018

Offshore wind is exploding in Europe, and readying to blow up in the US.

Prices no one expected for a decade now a reality.

Coming to a coastline near you.


Speaking at the International Offshore Wind Partnering Forum being held in New Jersey this week, New Jersey officials doubled down on Governor Murphy’s ambitious goal of securing 3,500 megawatts (MW) of offshore wind energy generation by 2030, which was affirmed in an Executive Order that the governor signed earlier this year (PDF).

“As a coastal state, offshore wind is a matter of common sense,” Governor Murphy told the Forum. “It’s a complete no-brainer.”

“New Jersey has joined the fight against global climate change,” Governor Murphy continued. “For us, this is more than just energy. It’s also about the economy. It can lead this state to long term economic stability.”

Maritime Executive:

California’s Redwood Coast Energy Authority has selected a floating offshore wind solution for a project of the Northern California Coast.

A consortium consisting of Principle Power, EDPR Offshore North America, Aker Solutions, H. T. Harvey & Associates and Herrera Environmental Consultants was one of six respondents to the Request for Qualifications issued on February 1, 2018. They beat other contenders including Statoil, EDF, Trident Winds and North Coast Floating Wind.

The wind farm will be the first commercial-scale project for floating offshore wind in the U.S. and is expected to be operational by 2024. The proposed project calls for a 100-150 megawatts floating offshore wind farm located more than 20 miles off the coast of Eureka. The wind resource in the area are the best off California with average wind speeds of more than ten meters per second.



11 Responses to “Offshore Wind in UK Cheaper than New Coal”

  1. nickreality65 Says:

    K-T and assorted clone diagrams of atmospheric power flux balances include a GHG up/down/”back” LWIR energy loop of about 330 W/m^2 which violates three basic laws of thermodynamics: 1) energy created out of thin air, 2) energy moving (i.e. heat) from cold to hot without added work, and 3) 100% efficiency, zero loss, perpetual looping.

    One possible defense of this GHG loop is that USCRN and SURFRAD data actually measure and thereby prove the existence of this up/down/”back” LWIR energy loop. Although in many instances the net 333 W/m^2 of up/down/”back” LWIR power flux loop exceeds by over twice the downwelling solar power flux, a rather obvious violation of conservation of energy.

    And just why is that?

    Per Apogee SI-100 series radiometer Owner’s Manual page 15. “Although the ε (emissivity) of a fully closed plant canopy can be 0.98-0.99, the lower ε of soils and other surfaces can result in substantial errors if ε effects are not accounted for.”

    Emissivity, ε, is the ratio of the actual radiation from a surface and the maximum S-B BB radiation at the surface’s temperature. Consider an example from the K-T diagram: 63 W/m^2 / 396 W/m^2 = 0.16 = ε. In fact, 63 W/m^2 & 289 K & 0.16 together fit just fine in a GB version of the S-B equation.

    What no longer fits is the 330 W/m^2 GHG loop which vanishes back into the mathematical thin air from whence it came.

    “Their staff is too long. They are digging in the wrong place.”

    “There is no spoon.”


    The up/down/”back” GHG radiation of RGHE theory simply:




    Which also explains why the scientific justification of RGHE is so contentious.

    • toby52 Says:

      What the eff are you talking about?

      • Abel Adamski Says:

        He thinks he knows, but has been cut to ribbons on Greg Ladens blog and laughed off every other blog.
        Just trying to impress those with limited knowledge of the subjects with all the sciency words and equations

        • dumboldguy Says:

          And that may be the best two sentence summary of Nick’s insignificance that has yet been posted on Crock.

      • nickreality65 Says:

        Science. Go get some.

        • Andy Lee Robinson Says:

          Reality. Go get some.

          • nickreality65 Says:

            The 396 W/m^2 upwelling and net 333 W/m^2 GHG energy loop as shown on the K-T power flux balance diagram (Figure 10 Trenberth et al 2011jcli24) is calculated using the S-B equation with an assumed emissivity of 1.0 and an average surface temperature of 16 C, 289 K. Because of the conductive/convective/advective/latent heat participating processes of the atmospheric molecules the actual and correct radiative emissivity is about 0.16, i.e. 63/396.

            This GHG energy loop is an inappropriate calculation with zero physical reality.

            Without this energy loop the radiative greenhouse effect theory fails.

            Without RGHE man-caused climate change does not exist.

            It’s called “science.”

            Don’t be frightened, spit out the Kool-Aid and give it a try.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            As I said when Nick the Moron posted this exact same boring BS on another old threaad:


  2. ubrew12 Says:

    A floating wind tower can use a combination of wind and wavepower to perform its own station-keeping, thus eliminating one of the most expensive items of a floating platform in deep water: the cost of the anchorage. The tower has to project about 50-100 feet below the ocean surface, and there anchor itself to a water-brake, which is essentially just a plastic tarp stretched across a simple truss structure. Below 50 feet, wave action is nonexistent, so a water-brake in still water will resist wave action at the surface. If the tower is designed to minimize its interactions with the waves (perhaps an open truss structure would be useful), a water-brake should be adequate to keep the wind tower stable even in the largest waves, after which its just a matter of placing the blades above those same waves. A properly designed (i.e. largely horizontal) water-brake should not interfere with the horizontal positioning of the floating wind-tower, per on-board GPS/propeller.

    • Andy Lee Robinson Says:

      No amount of wind power will overcome the power of a suitably-sized water-brake in a tidal current, unless it were collapsible allowing it to reposition and redeploy to go with the current several times a day.
      My feeling is that this would use an awful lot of energy and be something else that would require maintenance and one day fail.
      Would not be good to have these washing up on the beaches even if they have nothing to leak.
      Anchors are cheaper, even in water miles deep.

  3. redskylite Says:

    I remember a few years back there was much talk of how to capture the stronger winds at higher altitudes, kites (BAT) were one possibility at the time, however the idea seems to have died a death, although Altaeros are still going with some interesting kite projects in the pipeline. So Turbine height is one answer with ever growing towers upward into the heavens they go.

    Reaping the wind with the biggest turbines ever made

    “A single turbine this size, standing 260m tall, could produce enough electricity to power 16,000 households.

    The world’s current largest wind turbine is a third less powerful than that, generating 8MW. Various companies, including Siemens, are working on turbines around the 10MW mark.

    When it comes to wind turbines, it seems, size matters.

    This is because bigger turbines capture more wind energy and do so at greater altitudes, where wind production is more consistent.

    But designing and manufacturing blades of this size is a significant feat of engineering.”

Leave a Reply to dumboldguy Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: