According to a recent New Times article, it appears that this Morro Bay wind farm business is coming along (“Morro Bay wind farm project is back in motion,” May 27). They are proposing floating platforms far out to sea, somewhat based on experience with oil and gas offshore development. Floating wind platforms have only been experimental so far, but the few actually in place have been reported as mostly successful. The project will involve 100 massive turbines of around 10 MW (megawatt) capacity with blades the length of a soccer field. The ocean depth is way more than a mile in the proposed location so the project will be expanding into new territory on several levels, and, as one might expect, so will the costs. It will require massive subsidies for an installation that may only last 20 to 30 years.
The project boasts a 1,000 MW capacity, but wind turbines are incapable of producing at 100 percent of capacity year round. In 2020, California wind power only performed at 26 percent of name plate capacity for the year. So this project is likely to only actually produce in the neighborhood of a quarter to a third of its nameplate capacity annually depending on typical wind speeds in the project zone, which are less than spectacular, and the intraday and seasonal variability of wind speeds, which can be substantial in California. This unpredictability will require a substantial ongoing amount of carbon-emitting, fossil fuel backup generation to guarantee the stability of the grid.
The most important issue by far is the fact that there is no synergy between wind and solar in California because they both have their production peaks and lows at the same time during the day and throughout the year, which means that they are in competition. Renewables overproduction—energy that cannot be sold and used at the time it is produced—has been rising rapidly in California. Since California has already begun to produce more renewable energy than it can efficiently use, much of the added wind power produced by this project will go to waste.
So it appears that the developers and our politicians are asking us to pay a premium on top of what are already among the highest electricity rates in the country for something that has never been done before on such a scale and may not even work; whose costs cannot be accurately predicted because it has never been done before; whose inherent unpredictability will require a constant supply of carbon-emitting backup; and for power production much of which is likely to go to waste. Maybe it is just me but I think it is a very bad idea.
Mark Henry
San Luis Obispo
This article appears in Jun 3-13, 2021.
While I agree with much of this, the bottom line is that we have no choice. Wind and solar are the future. They offer the surest way to wean us off of fossil fuel consumption which will ultimately choke the planet (or at least our ability to live on it). Nuclear is also not an option because we have no way to safely store the waste. Although there may be early problems with offshore wind, I’m confident we can work them out. After all, oil drillers always seemed to find a way to tap even the most difficult wells.
Wind and solar currently using fossil fuels to build the materials to build the structures and will for some time. Not only that they will need replacing every 20-30 years. Homeowners face the cost not only of new roofs but the solar panels as well. As will cities, counties and states opting for wind and solar power generation.
On the other hand, Nuclear power station cells can be small enough to power neighborhoods buried in the ground not needing to be disturbed as the cell is depleted. That cell can remain where it is when another cell is put in place to take over the needed power generation. Not embracing the only true long term solution to power needs reveals a lack of understanding and knowledge about nuclear power and it’s safe use and disposal.
In Europe, nuclear power cells are reused until the remaining material is a tiny, easily stored amount of radioactive material. The U.S. is behind the times because of the shouting of a few highly vocal groups who fear nuclear power irrationally.
Take the time to study the advances in nuclear power making it the best choice for the future. Give up on wind and solar.
Yes nuclear power! All these old hippie wasteoids live in fear and will one day live in the dark because of their fear of nuclear and also because of their prejudice against oil. Michael Smith says WE have no choice. I do mike. I choose nuclear and oil!!!!!!!! YOU don’t choose for ME. Put up all of your panels and turbines which are expensive equivalents to a hamster running in a wheel to power conversion, and power up your one LED light over your dope plant for an hour idiot. Real power comes through gas and oil. Drill, drill, drill! Get ME more power and if I can’t use it all, sell it to other folks to get US more money!!! What a good idea! With more money we can buy more stuff. Maybe we can use the styrofoam from the packaging of our stuff to wrap the eco-whiners in a floating cocoon and sail their communist asses to China where they can worship chairman Mao in peace under solar panels with BLM flags flying proudly from wind turbine blades.
Troll alert: The anonymous coward who calls himself “Silence Dogood” is a Trump-cult troll and climate science denier.
Ass alert: The anally fixated shithead who identifies as Gordon “Choadmaster” Chuglie is a communist blot of fecal material and a climate emergency Kool-aid drinker. I do deny the climate “crisis”, the actual science (not the science of corrupted liberal wannabe science), based on climate fluctuation for the short time we have it recorded accurately, shows that climate heating and cooling fluctuates quite randomly regardless of people, cars, dinosaurs, pride parades, people of color, complete albinos who drive off-road vehicles at the dunes or racists who see racism from racist perspectives perpetrated by racists who don’t know they are racist, which makes them double racist especially if they are people of color or LGBTQrstuvwxyz…. Gordon, I would call you a tard, but that would offend retarded people which is pretty much all the folks who purposefully read the slo new times. The last Troll you saw was in your D&D game you 12 sided dice rolling nerd. Nuclear and fossil fuel power forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Love thy neighbor.
Mr. Henrys comments and observations should be well taken. They wisely suggest that the science and economics of wind power and this proposed project in particular be deeply and diligently examined by stakeholders on all sides of the equation and that rational decisions and conclusions should be drawn from that.
Anyone who has driven across the United States lately will know from personal experience of seeing the great white windmills along the way, that wind power generation is proliferating at a rapid pace. That suggest some communities have found Reasonably safe and economically viable applications of wind power generation and that it should at least be considered for suitable locations in California and PERHAPS offshore. Certainly there are many locations where wind power operations would be a mistake economically and environmentally. Lets take the potential of wind power seriously enough to put in the time and effort to be able to make that crucial differentiation.
If there is to be a public commission studying the pros and cons of wind power generation on the central coast, Arroyo Grande councilman Jimmy Paulding would be an ideal member.
Paulding, with his private sector engineering and administration background, coupled with his history of local public service on behalf of local residents and businesses on the central coast, has an ideal background for studying the issue and presenting a balanced analysis.
We need more politicians like this, who are pragmatic and reasonable as well as open minded to the possibilities and potential of new technology. Not being an alternative energy expert myself, and with no strong inclination to become one, I would be inclined to trust conclusions on this particular subject that Paulding might share with us.
One thing few will disagree with: our energy technology is changing rapidly and we’d be best to be wise about how we deal with that now and always. And I’m going to gravitate toward those local leaders who are optimistic about those changes, rather than those who insist on clinging to the past regardless of the cost of doing so.