wind farms off the TX coast?

[oldag]

They spent some obscene amount of money building a wind farm off the coast of Martha's Vineyard. The total program was cut in half because enough people saw costs ballooning out of control; $4billion to make 806 megawatts on windy days.

In Texas, the average household uses 36 kWh of electricity per day.
A megawatt is 1000 kW.
If I'm looking at this accurately, $4bil wind farm would power 22,388 houses. $178,667 per house to power them for the first year. Wind turbines have an estimated lifespan of 20-25 years, but in the real world I think more accurately thats 10-15 years not counting maintenance, survey, and other costs. So amortize that over about 10 or so years, thats nearly $18,000 per year per house. How are they ever making their money back? Even if those stupid things do last 20 years, I think my highest electricity bill for my rather small house in the burbs was $400 because of a crummy heat pump and old windows. They'd have to charge $1000 per month, every month for every house to ever hope to make a profit because at the end of 20 years they have to replace them!

Thats not even assuming there are going to be shutdowns for repairs, non-windy days (but on the ocean its generally windy) or anything else going wrong. These only work with subsidies.

Wind turbines have a "life" in excess of 20-25 years. However, a number of main components will be replaced during that time. The gearbox and generator will each probably be replaced several times. The main bearing two to three times. Blades will likely be replaced once (maybe more depending upon lightning damage). And of course smaller components.

Offshore wind would go away if not for taxpayer subsidies. Onshore wind would be drastically scaled back if taxpayer subsidies went away.

Onshore, a good capacity factor is around 40%. Capacity factors of 32-25% are not unusual for wind sites. Offshore might be a little higher. {E.g., on average, what percent of the nameplate (maximum output) rating of the turbine is produced.}

 

[alternative]

The only way to go green is the development of fusion. Won't be in my lifetime but it will be here eventually.

 

[benenglish]

The only way to go green is the development of fusion. Won't be in my lifetime but it will be here eventually.

Proven nuclear alternatives are the greenest tech we have.

At a large scale, just capturing and burning all the natural gas we get out of the ground would do more to achieve green goals than anything else.

Expensive offshore wind generation with a (realistically) negative ROI is mind-bogglingly stupid. Wind and solar make economic sense from a bit more than Arizona to west Texas and basically nowhere else in the USA. I can't imagine the room-temp IQ that would think it's a good idea offshore.

Wait. There's politics involved?

Never mind. That explains it.

 

[oldag]

The only way to go green is the development of fusion. Won't be in my lifetime but it will be here eventually.

I am fine with fission plants.

 

[alternative]

I am fine with fission plants.

I am too but eventually we will have fusion. Doubt that I will see it.

 

[Tnhawk]

I am too but eventually we will have fusion. Doubt that I will see it.

If it don't put money in china's and biden's hands, it isn't going to happen anytime soon.

 

[leVieux]

<>

Well the Kennedys surely didn’t want them off HyannisPort. Remember ?

<>