These canceled New York offshore wind farms totaling 1.7 GW just officially made a comeback

[Think. Again.]

Michelle Lewis, Feb 29 2024 - 12:09 pm PT
Full Article: https://electrek.co/2024/02/29/canceled-new-york-offshore-wind-comeback/

Equinor’s Empire Wind 1 and Eversource and Ørsted’s Sunrise Wind previously canceled their offshore wind contracts with New York, but now they’re back.

Governor Kathy Hochul today (D-NY) announced that New York State conditionally awarded the 810 megawatt (MW) Empire Wind 1 and the 924 MW Sunrise Wind from its fourth offshore wind solicitation.

These two projects had previously canceled contracts made in 2019 as part of New York’s first offshore wind solicitation but reached viable power purchase agreements in this latest round.

-snip-

Since they’re “shovel-ready” projects, Empire Wind I, located 15 miles off New York’s shore, and Sunrise Wind, located more than 30 miles east of the eastern point of Long Island, have already completed most federal and state permitting milestones. Empire Wind I received final approval of its Construction and Operations plan from the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) last week.

Together, they’ll provide enough clean power for 1 million New York homes and deliver around 10% of New York City and Long Island’s electricity. They’ll reduce greenhouse gas emissions by over 3 million metric tons annually, the equivalent annual emissions of over 740,000 cars.

-snip-

Full Article: https://electrek.co/2024/02/29/canceled-new-york-offshore-wind-comeback/

[FBaggins]

1. By doubling the price of the power they will sell

Not a great look

[Think. Again.]

2. I don't see that in the article, do you have a source for that claim?

[FBaggins]

6. Blues Heron found one below

[Think. Again.]

7. Yes, and it explains that...

...the additional amount added to average bill would go up from 0.75 cents to 2 dollars.

That seems like an extremely low cost to pay to eliminate CO2 emmissions from the electricity of 1 million homes.

[Blues Heron]

3. Is this the article you saw?

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/29/offshore-wind-costs-new-york-projects-00144143

Bills might increase by 2 dollars instead of just 75 cents. Stop. The. Presses.

[Blues Heron]

4. it might raise your bill by two dollars a month instead of 75 cents, hardly budget busting increases there

Still a good idea overall. It would be idiotic to let that free energy in the wind blow by without harvesting it. The wind will never stop blowing, and will always be free for the taking. It is a truly limitless resource.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/29/offshore-wind-costs-new-york-projects-00144143

[FBaggins]

5. But that's because they're producing hardly any power compared to the region's demands

It would be idiotic to let that free energy in the wind blow by

It is in no sense "free energy" (as evidenced by the price necessary to harvest it)

The wind will never stop blowing

On the contrary. It stops all the time (and often at the least opportune moments - as much of Canada learned last year).

It is indeed effectively "limitless"... it's just unreliable.

[Think. Again.]

8. It's 10 percent of the region's demands...

...that's quite a bit for only the first 2 plants:

"...around 10% of New York City and Long Island’s electricity. They’ll reduce greenhouse gas emissions by over 3 million metric tons annually, the equivalent annual emissions of over 740,000 cars."

And as far as "unreliable" goes, that's where energy storage tech comes in.

[FBaggins]

9. It really isn't

They're playing games with the figures.

1.7 GW of capacity x 40% capacity factor x $150/mwh = about $75 million per month.

That isn't just $.75 extra per home per month over just a million homes. They're splitting the cost up over a much larger area than just the city and Long Island (and thus is a far smaller proportion of demand). If NYC was footing the bill by itself energy bills would skyrocket.

And as far as "unreliable" goes, that's where energy storage tech comes in.

Which isn't available at anywhere close to that scale - and isn't free. When comparing energy from different sources, you need to account for those extra costs

that's quite a bit for only the first 2 plants

"Only" the first two plants? They will be two of the ten (possibly top five) largest offshore plants in the world.

[Think. Again.]

10. I don't really understand what your argument is...

...are you saying we should continue emitting CO2 for that energy because the damages that will cause will be preferable to an additional $2 per month?

[FBaggins]

11. Are those the only two options?

Last edited Fri Mar 1, 2024, 07:03 PM - Edit history (1)

Why can't I support cheaper options for reducing carbon emissions?

[Think. Again.]

12. Cheaper than $2/month? I'm in! let's hear about 'em!