With the U.S. Government’s Green Energy plan to increase offshore wind power 1,000 times the present power generation by 2030, we will need some massive-sized wind turbines to do the trick. One such monster is GE’s Haliade-X 12 MW offshore wind turbine. When fully erected, the GE Haliade-X will rise to a gargantuan 853 feet tall. Thus, the GE Haliade-X will likely be one of the tallest energy boondoggles in history.
But, GE doesn’t get all the blame; Vestas and Siemens-Gamesa have 15 MW offshore wind turbines projected to come out in 2024. So, I say… if we are going to go GREEN… we might as well go as BIG & INSANE as possible. And, it looks like the global wind power industry will provide just what the doctor ordered.
To really get an idea of just how big these offshore wind turbines are getting, here is a larger featured image picture of the wind turbine body (nacelle). Where the GE logo is on the front part is where the place is attached. The GE Wind Turbine plant is located in Saint-Nazaire, France.
Here is another image of the Haliade-X Nacelle on a super-oversized shipping trailer.
GE’s Haliade-X Nacelle comes in at a tiny 600 metric tons or 1.2 million pounds. Supposedly, Siemens-Gamesa’s 15 MW features a “light-weight nacelle” only at 500 metric tons.
So, how tall is the 260 meter (853 foot) tall GE Haliade-X look like compared to other well-known things? Take a look at the graphic below.
As we can see, GE’s Haliade-X wind turbine with blades is twice as tall as Britain’s Big Ben. The GE Halaide-X blades are 351 feet in length!!
According to FACT SHEET: Biden Administration Jumpstarts Offshore Wind Energy Projects to Create Jobs:
Establishing a Target of Employing Tens of Thousands of Workers to Deploy 30 Gigawatts (30,000 megawatts) of Offshore Wind by 2030. The Departments of Interior (DOI), Energy (DOE), and Commerce (DOC) are announcing a shared goal to deploy 30 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind in the United States by 2030, while protecting biodiversity and promoting ocean co-use. Meeting this target will trigger more than $12 billion per year in capital investment in projects on both U.S. coasts, create tens of thousands of good-paying, union jobs, with more than 44,000 workers employed in offshore wind by 2030 and nearly 33,000 additional jobs in communities supported by offshore wind activity. It will also generate enough power to meet the demand of more than 10 million American homes for a year, and avoid 78 million metric tons of CO2 emissions.
Well, there you have it. The U.S. Government Biden Administration is pushing for 30,000 megawatts or 30 gigawatts of offshore wind power by 2030. How much is this? Quite a bit if we compare it to the present 42 megawatts of U.S. offshore wind capacity.
While the U.S. has added quite a bit of onshore wind power, its offshore wind capacity is a DROP IN THE BUCKET compared to many European countries. Biden’s Green Energy Plan would like to nearly double the current capacity of the U.K. (8.5 GW) and Germany (7.4 GW).
For the U.S. to ramp up its current offshore wind capacity of 42 MW (really closer to 30 MW), to 30,000 MW, that is 1,000 times the present rate in 8.5 years… LOL.
Here is some interesting info from the article, Biggest Wind Turbines Won’t Solve Our Energy Problems–Delingpole:
Electricity produced by onshore wind costs twice as much as conventional gas-fired electricity generation; offshore wind three times as much. The only reason the wind industry is viable is because of the massive subsidies it receives. Subsidies raised silently from your energy bill.
…In fact, Professor Gordon Hughes, of the University of Edinburgh, and his colleagues showed in a recent study published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation think-tank, that the capital costs of new offshore wind farms do not appear to be falling and indeed appear to be still rising as wind projects move into deeper waters.
While industry experts have stated the wind and solar power costs are falling versus fossil fuel coal and natgas, this is not really true when we look at the entire costs and lifespan of these power units. Offshore wind turbines and blades deal with more environmental wear and tear due to the high winds and salt.
One of the U.S. windfarms projected to begin construction in 2023, is the “Vineyard Wind 1” off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts. The offshore wind farm will be 800 MW utilizing 62 wind turbines costing $2.8 billion. Thus, each wind turbine, including all extras and electric underwater cabling, will cost a cool $45 million apiece.
And, to erect these massive wind towers and blades, here is an artist rendering of a ship that will be used just for this purpose.
With the U.S. believing BIGGER IS BETTER when it comes to Green Energy, we are setting up one of the biggest Energy Boondoggles in history as the world heads over the ENERGY CLIFF. How will we maintain or replaces these gargantuan wind monsters when the energy supply collapses in the future??
If you have not yet watched the Late Bronze Age Collapse video presentation below, I highly recommend it.
Any information (data, charts & graphs) that are published for free public use, can be republished elsewhere.
DISCLAIMER: SRSrocco Report provides intelligent, well-researched information to those with interest in the economy and investing. Neither SRSrocco Report nor any of its owners, officers, directors, employees, subsidiaries, affiliates, licensors, service and content providers, producers or agents provide financial advisement services. Neither do we work miracles. We provide our content and opinions to readers only so that they may make informed investment decisions. Under no circumstances should you interpret opinions which SRSrocco Report or Steve St. Angelo offers on this or any other website as financial advice.
Check back for new articles and updates at the SRSrocco Report. You can also follow us on Twitter and Youtube below:
I guess, if you never try you will never know! 😏 Where do all these geniuses come from? How did they ever get into these positions of power? What do they think about when they go to bed every night?
You just can’t make this stuff up. They are obviously flawed characters.
RedOpal,
Totally agree. Interestingly, they claim after 20 years of use, the wind turbine and blades can be replaced at 20-30% of the new cost. But, I don’t see how. Are costs of things going down in the future? Also, they say the offshore wind turbine foundation has a 45-50 year lifespan. So, that would have to be replaced as well.
WHERE THE HELL IS ALL THIS RENEWABLE WIND POWER???
LOL,
steve
Ha! Wind turbine blades in backwardation? That is funny.
One feels the structural engineer who’s elected to design the foundation did so under inebriation: A make-or-break career moment.
That is not as silly as it sounds Hubbs… 😊
Steve,
Another great article, but don’t forget the batteries, transmission wires, and transformers.
I wish I could get some analysis on whether acquiring some 100 watt Renogy or HQST solar panels, 100 AH Li (Battleborn) batteries, MPPT controllers, and inverters now is a good strategy. Not to use now, but keep in storage until I or my daughter need them in 5-10 years. I know EVs and whole house systems are totally unrealistic for most, and certainly not on a wide scale basis. Shelf life of Li batteries? EMP risks? It’s not that I could ever hope to duplicate the amount and relative low cost of the energy supply I currently (terrible pun) enjoy through the utility company, but ten years from now, having just a fraction available might be a Godsend.
220-meter rotor, madness. We may as we’ll repair the pyramids and get them back on line.
Hubbs,
Thanks for your response to my comment on the previous thread. Fully agree with your assessment on authorities trying to steal one’s gold assets. Have a store of silver on hand for those smaller purchases that you have advised. As far as purchasing solar batteries for backup, they now make them in one package with battery combined with inverter and other accessories. They are expensive and I think waiting a few more years to buy to allow more time for the companies to refine their products would be in order.
Used to live in Pueblo, Colorado and able to tour the Vestas wind turbine factory. It is an amazing place and worth seeing!! The folks there truly believe that wind power is the answer. Too bad it’s all going down the rabbit hole. Hubbs, Feel free to email me(rnanes@gmail.com) on your battery questions
The author quoted an outside source of info: ( my comment is NOT directed at Mr. St. Angelo)
“Electricity produced by on-shore wind costs twice as much conventional gas-fired electrical; off-shore three times as much”.
Absolute BS! Absolute. Try 10 times and 20 times for starters, when you include the management and maintenance costs. How can anyone possibly think it’s 2-3 times? Let me tell you, somewhere the data collectors are lying.
Hey folks, can you imagine how much it costs to work on those monsters? Probably around $10,000 per hour, when it’s all said and done. Extremely dangerous work. Highly technical. Bad Weather. Supply chains. Insurance. Injuries and Deaths.
I worked in the power industry, and I can tell you that the cost of producing electricity with these types of generators is astronomical compared to conventional power plants. And think of the difficulties involved! Orders of magnitude higher.
This is a giant boondoggle, and the insiders know it!
I’m going to throw a big party the day that a hurricane comes along and mows down a big swath of those windmills. A big party. And you’re all invited.
Your comment brings me to a question that I am embarrassed to ask: WHY do they want to build these things offshore? What is the perceived comparative advantage of situating these things offshore that would justify all the added expense? For that matter, why do they have to be so huge, when the same power could be generated by a larger number of smaller units? I’d appreciate any suggested reading for a common-sense perspective.
Great questions, Fluffy.
You see, the reason they want to build them offshore is that despite the general public’s love affair with environmentalism, NO ONE wants those monsters “in their back yards”.
Those things are intrusive, ugly, and very, very loud! The noise is like an endless droning that drives everyone nuts! They drive pets crazy, especially dogs. Also, on land those props kill about 10 times as many birds. There are more reasons, too many to talk about here.
I think that having them in the ocean also lends itself to a sort of “cache’ “, if you know what I mean. Makes them seem more high tech, more fascinating. It also plays into the idea that wind and solar power are “free”.
I agree with you that smaller units would be better. Much easier to service. But still a boondoggle.
Just look at it this way: an offshore oil platform costs around $200,000 per day to operate. $200,000 PER DAY! Whether you are producing oil or not! Just think how much cheaper it is to operate a well on dry land. Offshore wind is not the same exact animal, but similar in many ways.
These offshore wind platforms remind me of the Maginot Line in France. A huge expense for something totally impractical, and ultimately useless. All built because the people and government were trying to avoid doing the right thing, the “hard” thing, i. e. facing reality.
Someday there will be organized tours to the offshore wind mills, just like there are tours to the Maginot Line today (I’ve been there). And like the Maginot Line, people will stand there scratching their heads, saying, “It’s very quaint. But what the H were they thinking?”.
And by the way, it was the same type of people in France who promoted the Maginot mindset, that promote the Environmental mindset in the world today (look it up). And we all know how it turned out for France.
Thanks for your well thought-out and to-the-point response. I appreciate it and agree completely with the sentiment. Regards
Maybe, sort of. Bird kills by wind turbines are more than an order of magnitude less than birds killed by power lines. Both though, are a tiny fraction of what cats kills… But hey, at least ‘windmills’ don’t actually cause cancer!
With what we know RIGHT NOW, I would think that folks would be at least considering the more pragmatic approach to energy: as in, using less of it. Clearly, whatever ‘source’ it comes from, one way or another, it, or its somewhat invisible (to most) hydrocarbon subsidy
is in depletion. Easter Island was brought up as an example, but perhaps a better one is St. Matthew Island. Once we have filled every niche in a closed environment and used up all available resources, the end seems…dire. And yet, I know barely anyone who seems to have the slightest desire to simply live a less energy intensive lifestyle. Friends and casual conversation I engage in with this topic in mind, show that most strongly react to using less as a proxy for some sort of failure of the classical american dream. This appears to me to quite literally be an almost perfect recipe for disaster on a grand scale. Human beings have been here before (Easter Island, etc.) so maybe this is just the consequence of most of us having either tunnel vision, or little sense of history and consequences. Regardless, unless we change probably within a generation, or less, the chances for anything resembling a soft landing get smaller each year, IMO.
You are in good company Steve.
Article by Egon Von Greyerz – Silver Doctors
Quote:
As the chart below indicates, economic growth is totally linked to the availability of oil.
The chart shows that World GDP per capita (from 1968) grows in line with consumption and therefore also to the availability of oil. As oil production is likely to decrease over the long term so will economic growth. This is totally in line with the view I have expressed in many articles and interviews, namely that we are at the end of a major economic cycle of at least 300 years and maybe longer.
EXPONENTIALITY LEADS TO FINALITY: GOLD WILL CONTINUE TO REFLECT FIAT MONEY DESTRUCTION
https://www.silverdoctors.com/headlines/world-news/exponentiality-leads-to-finality-gold-will-continue-to-reflect-fiat-money-destruction/
Steve. several years ago you exposed the huge “debt wall” facing the 5 or 6 biggest oil companies. The impact was to be felt around 2018 I think I recall. I would like to hear about this issue and how these companies are coping.
So these engineers are going to build these enormous wind turbines. Great !
I hear the next step is that they will use the energy from these wind turbines to build even more wind turbines.
Isn’t Green Energy wonderful !
Will sharks swarm around it to eat all the dead birds?
I know it sounded sort of trivial to bring up birds being killed. But it’s one piece of the puzzle as far as the public’s perception. Many people who were in a position to observe the hundreds of birds lying at the base of some of these wind generators have changed their tune about the “green-ness” of wind power. Out in the ocean, the birds drift away, of course.
Thanks, Steve.
What is the expected useful operation life for these monster wind turbines?