Factual Wind Farm Information That Everyone Should Read

Delaware Sea Grant along with a representative from UD’s Center for Research in Wind (CReW) Press Round Table. Also Research From Other Reliable Sources.

I attended a round table meeting with the media and Delaware Sea Grant along with a representative from UD’s Center for Research in Wind CReW about offshore wind energy. The information given to us was not influenced by Orsted or US Wind. In fact it was about offshore wind energy in general, but related to the coming or proposed offshore wind farm projects. I learned two things at this meeting.
The media is regurgitating the loudest in the room, that would be the anti wind groups. Can’t blame the media for that, those people are relentless.
Secondly that the anti wind groups are purposely using the most skewed information to fit their agenda, not surprised even a little bit. Below I am providing you with links and as much information as possible so you can make your own educated decisions on these projects instead of the emotion being pushed on social media. The Google is an amazing tool when you do some searches. Take the time to check and read all of the links, it is in your best interest.

There are a few social media groups, coincidentally all funded and supported by one group, CRI, that is being funded by the oil and gas industry lobbyists. People are purposely being misled about their view at the beach and other made up issues. There is a great deal of information that the public isn’t aware of and I have spent a lot of time digging for that information. It is easy to mislead anyone with skewed surveys and Caeser Rodney Institute (CRI) has been in the lead of that misinformation campaign. They even have lobbyists with fake accounts all over local social media pages bulldogging anyone who posts. It is typical scare tactics, followed by bullying to push an agenda. The black hole of Facebook social media drama is a great place for them to campaign. With some diligent research you can find the lobbying groups behind all of this with some specific Google searches. I am not going to waste your time or get into that in this article but look up ALEC and start there..

I also asked Orsted for specific answers to questions the public is either assuming or being told, by people who don’t have that very knowledge or information. A lot of “facts” being used is purposely skewed. The survey touted by CRI is the Lutzyer survey, and it is way off compared to every other survey. You can see that in the handout photos at the bottom this article. Even the EPA is putting out statements based on skewed studies and information. Comparing a twenty year lifespan of a wind turbine to a year of coal use’s carbon footprint.
I have talked to the folks at CReW, Orsted, and looked up as many sources as possible. I think people not only have the right to the correct information but also a responsibility. Especially those that attend the meetings and workshops, such as the one this weekend. I see a lot of people at meetings regurgitating this false information as facts. Don’t take my word for it, do your own research. The facts are easy to find online with some diligent searches.

Some facts I would like to mention …

The largest offshore wind turbine farm that will come online in 2020 off the east coast of Britain can power one million households. Compared to the United States, due to the differences in energy delivery and usage, that would be around 500,000 households in the United States. This wind farm and the existing largest were both built by Orsted.
That is literally twenty-five percent more than all of the households in the State of Delaware. That alone should give you a good example of why big oil doesn’t want this company in the United States. Can you imagine losing more than 500,000 customers? Currently the world’s largest offshore wind farm, Orsted’s Walney Extension, is located in the Irish Sea. It powers nearly 600,000 households, that would be about 300,00 households in Delaware, or more than 75% of Delaware homes. If you are concerned about weather affecting an offshore wind farm here, just do some research on the waters where these current farms are located.

The view of these wind farm turbines in the summer will be nonexistent, due to the atmospheric conditions or “summer haze” as we call it. You just can’t see that far.

I asked Orsted some direct questions recently about a few issues I see on social media as far as information. I asked Orsted a set of questions in November, the set below is round two.
It is amazing how skewed and uninformed people’s views are especially on social media. Not really a surprise, just rather annoying especially when you try to give them the correct information. One thing Delawareans need to realize is this lease is owned by Orsted and they have the right to build the Skipjack wind farm. We could benefit from it with the Fenwick Island State Park proposal or we could not at all. The choice is there.

DSF … How deep will the transmission lines between the turbines be and to the turbines from the transfer station?  Commercial anglers are asking me this.  
Orsted … Cables will be 4-6 feet under the sea bed (between turbines) and as they get closer to the interconnection facility, it’ll be 30 feet under the beach, using horizontal directional drilling (HDD). We actually are in the midst of drawing an infographic and once the engineers tell me it’s 100% correct, will forward over to you. 

DSF … Are the blades for the turbines made of recyclable materials now? Or do these just wind up in a landfill. I am sure I can find this on a site somewhere but I haven’t searched that hard and with the advancing tech you will know better. This question obviously applies to the turbines being used now not the older models.
Orsted …. The blades are composite composite materials that are made on a similar process & construction as fiberglass boat hulls. The material is a cross linked reinforced polymer, so it is difficult to recycle.
Interpretation … Anything made of these composite materials is not recycled or difficult to recycle. Boat hulls, car parts, construction materials, etc.
Granted that doesn’t make adding to that landfill fodder right or good, but it does show the minimal amount that is added in comparison. I mean how many boats do we have in the United States? cars? Think about that. Getting people fired up on the recycling or burying of these blades is a scare tactic. When we have plenty of other products that are made of the same materials. How many of you have composite decks on your houses? Siding etc. etc.

DSF … Is there any math or numbers on the carbon footprint for making a turbine.  I know there is and that is obvious, but people are that misguided they can’t separate carbon footprint in construction from the carbon footprint in power production. 
Orsted …
Here’s three studies Matt Drew (Orsted engineer) pointed to that might be helpful:
Wind Energy’s Carbon Footprint – FactCheck.org
https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=d4dde066-8809ed14-d4dd0e29-86859b2931b3-26b9b4e3e6c70a4c&q=1&e=14cd50ba-9f59-48ea-9aa0-3c0d2c1c0525&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.factcheck.org%2F2018%2F03%2Fwind-energys-carbon-footprint%2F

Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds
https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=8c5d6652-d0896dec-8c5d881d-86742d02e7e2-b98fdfd19bece5a7&q=1&e=8fcd9662-b3e8-406b-a032-819605b45cfe&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.carbonbrief.org%2Fsolar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints

Life cycle costs and carbon emissions of wind power https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=040aeace-5880c801-040a0481-0cc47ad93ea4-44ead9d7e412f46c&q=1&e=a0003a2f-eb58-4a35-9969-a35d167a7027&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.climatexchange.org.uk%2Fmedia%2F1459%2Flife_cycle_wind_-_executive_summary_.pdf

In summary, there are two ways to answer this.
Compare the energy required to construct a generation facility versus the energy produce of the lifetime of the same facility. (See Ref 2)
Findings
   i.    11% of the energy generated by a coal-fired plant is offset by the energy needed to build the plant.  In other words, every one unit of energy invested in coal power yields 9 units of electricity.  This ratio is known as Energy Return on Investment, or EROI.               ii.    The EROI of Coal is 9:1
   iii.    The EROI of Nuclear is 20:1, 120% better than coal
   iv.    The EROI of Solar is 26:1, 180% better than coal
    v.    The EROI of Wind is 44:1, 380% better than coal.

Compare the energy produced of the lifetime of a generation facility versus the CO2 emissions of the facility over the same life span. (See Refs 1 & 3)
Findings
 i.    Onshore wind, offshore wind, and nuclear are roughly equal, producing between 10 and 15 grams of CO2 per kWH of electricity generated over the facility’s lifecycle.
 ii.    Conventional Coal produces 58 times the CO2 compared to onshore, offshore wind, and nuclear.
 iii.    Combined cycle natural gas produces 31 times the CO2 compare to onshore, offshore wind, and nuclear.
 iv.    Carbon-capture & Sequestration Coal produces 10 times the CO2 compare to onshore, offshore wind, and nuclear.

DSF … Will the power cost more for Delaware customers from the power company or just Maryland?  Do I need to ask Delmarva Power this question? 
Orsted …. MD only. Since Maryland purchased the Offshore Wind Renewable Energy Credits (ORECs), and DE didn’t purchase any, only MD can raise rates for ratepayers and only MD can get financial benefit from the power generated by Skipjack. So, connecting in Fenwick is a great way for DE to get involved in offshore wind without “sticking their neck out” financially. 
It is important to note that this power is fed into the main grid, not just Maryland. In other words everyone will be using the wind power, Delaware just won;t have higher rates for it.

DSF … How much will this be subsidized by the feds?  Like fossil fuels are now?
Orsted …  The only Federal “subsidy” that we are aware of is the Investment Tax Credit. On the revenue side, the Federal Government will receive revenue from Orsted in the form of lease payments.

Below is the handout from the Media Round-table with Delaware Sea Grant along with a representative from UD’s Center for Research in Wind, CReW. It contains a lot of solid information about research and surveys specific to wind energy in general for this area. One thing to note is the one survey being touted by the misinformation campaigns (CRI) is literally the only one that has the worst information, surprised? It stands all by itself when compared to other surveys that were done with the proper test groups. These were all independent studies as well.

You decide for yourself what you think should be happen. Keeping in mind these companies can and will build these wind farms. The question you should ask yourself is do I want my state to benefit from this or not? Do I want clean energy or the status quo polluting our waterways and air? Do I want a company that is obviously the best at these proven projects overseas to build these off my coast, or someone else? Wind energy is the not the end all beat all, it is an alternative to what we have now, and should be encourages as well as solar.

You decide what you want, don’t let a group scare you with skewed information and bully tactics.
when you boil it all down, this is a corporate money game. Big oil is invested heavily in these projects. They know it is coming, keeping people stirred up makes them money from both ends. Also you have to realize “they” keep telling people to say no to these foreign companies, yet they want to do the same projects. I’d prefer the people that know what they are doing to take that ball and run with it.

Rich King