Category Archives: Cost Benefit

There is good money and there is bad

siemens-indiana-672x372To the Editor:

The proposed industrial wind turbine “farm” is not welcomed by the majority of the people. It will inhibit our view of the sky, cause health problems for people and animals, and cost this community, and surrounding communities a fortune in lost property values and revenue.

At a recent town hall meeting in Hopkinton, one of the contract holders stated, “Where is National Grid based?” This was in response to the issue of Iberdrola being out of Spain. Well, this was the most pathetic attempt at drawing a parallel that I’ve heard, so far.

Dear Mr. Contract Holder, National Grid does not require me to erect anything on my property that robs my neighbors of their health and property values. National Grid does not sneak into our community, like a snake in the grass, to pit me against my neighbors to further their subsidy mining. National Grid is providing a necessary evil, I’d love to be off grid.

I could go on, but I want to tell you about the woman who spoke before him. She stood up to tell us how she needed this contract to pay her taxes. Her tax burden was too heavy. She went on to talk about how the house across the road from her had been on the market for three years and hadn’t sold.

Maybe it’s because her property, directly across the road is contracted to house industrial wind turbines? And that’s part of disclosure to potential buyers. Could she possibly have her Iberdrola blinders on too tight? There are a lot of elderly people in our community. They will be passing on, who’s going to buy their properties with industrial wind turbines hulking over them? And you, Mr. and Mrs. contract holder, what if no one wants to buy or inherit your property when you pass on. God willing, my husband and I will be alive for another 50 years or more.

We don’t want to deal with your shortsightedness. Some of you are very near the end of your lives, at least statistically. When you’re gone, people will either lament your passing, or want to forget what you did to our community. Will your families want to be associated with the so and so’s of Hopkinton/Parishville, who destroyed the quality of life for an entire community, to make a buck?

Finally I’d like to state that we don’t hate people for their mistakes, and implore the same from you. If you’re a contract holder, you have most assuredly made a mistake. Iberdrola is a $44 billion company. Blindsided, you were no match for them. It’s a mistake we may have made, if we were in your shoes. We have seven children, five still living at home. Money is important, and fun! But there’s good money and bad money.

Whether God allows this project to come to completion or not, all of us need to put our differences on this matter aside and rise above the mess that Iberdrola has brought to our community.

Jim and Angela Spear

Parishville, New York

Published- North County NowMarch 16, 2017:  http://northcountrynow.com/letters/opinion-put-differences-aside-wind-tower-matter-say-parishville-couple-0194077

Wynne’s 50 billion dollar ‘mistake’

elephant in the roomPremier Wynne’s $50-billion elephant – Parker Gallant Energy Perspectives

Do a Google search of “premier wynne+elephant in the room” you get 1,140,000 hits while a search for just “premier wynne” only gets 486,000 hits. The word “elephant” has been used by Ontario’s premier on a number of occasions. For example, the “elephant” popped up at one of the expensive Ontario Liberal Party fundraising dinners a year ago where she declared, referring to the provincial deficit, “So while some want to characterize Ontario’s deficit as the elephant in the room, I think a panda is the more appropriate metaphor,” she said. “Truly, Jia Panpan and Jia Yueyue [visiting pandas at the Toronto Zoo] were adorable. But the pandas are leaving Ontario in 2018, and in 2017-18 our deficit will be gone, too.”

The “elephant” has returned for her government in the form of high electricity prices but instead of cute little “pandas,” Premier Wynne was forced to call them her “mistake”!

Let’s look at that elephant now.

The recent release of Ontario Power Generation (OPG) 2016 annual report provides enough information to allow one to figure out exactly what created the elephantine mistake and where to point the finger. To do that we will compare the results of 2016 to 2009* and show the cause of the above market climb in electricity prices.

Price Comparison

IESO’s (Independent Electricity System Operator) data discloses the cost of electricity generation in 2009 was 6.22 cents/kWh or $62.20 per megawatt hour (MWh) or $62.2 million/TWh (terawatt hour) and in 2016 was 11.32 cents/kWh or $113.20/MWh or $113.2 million/TWh. The increase from 2009 to 2016 represents a jump of 82% in only seven years and in simple terms, is a jump of 11.7% annually.

Using the above prices to show the full cost of electricity generation in those two years is accomplished by multiplying total generation by the cost per TWh so:

Total generation 2009: 148 TWh X $62.2 MM= $9,205 MM

Total generation 2016: 149.5 TWh X $113.2 million = $16,923 MM

(Source: IESO)

That means an increase of $7,718 million (+83.8%) in the raw cost of the commodity-electricity.

Finding the “mistake”

Why did the cost jump 83.8%?

Let’s start with the generation produced by OPG who, according to their 2009 annual report generated 92.5 TWh and 78.2 TWh in 2016. Bruce Nuclear in 2009 generated 35.7 TWh and in 2016 they generated 46.1 TWh. Collectively OPG plus Bruce generated 128.2 TWh in 2009 and that represented 86.6% of total generation (148 TWh) by all generators that year. In 2016 the collective total was 124.3 TWh which represented 83.1% of all generation (149.5 TWh) in that year as reported by IESO.

Costing the generation

2009

For OPG: The costing of generation coming from OPG is a relatively simple task requiring only their gross revenue for the year divided by the generation they reported. For 2009 gross revenue was $5,640 million for the 92.5 TWh delivered making the all-in cost $61 million/TWh.

For Bruce Nuclear: The reported price paid to Bruce was $65.90/MWH. So, for the 35.7 TWh they generated, the gross revenue generated was $2,352 million or $65.9 million /TWh.

The combined costs of $5,640 million from OPG plus the $2,352 million from Bruce was $7,992 billion to produce 128.2 TWh making the combined cost per TWh $62.34 million or 6.23 cents/kWh.

As noted above, total costs for all generation reported by IESO for 2009 was $9,205 million meaning $1,213 million ($9,205 million less OPG/Bruce combined of $7,992 million) was spent to acquire the 19.8 TWh generated by the other private generators, making their costs per TWh $61.3 million or 6.13 cents/kWh. (Note: 9.8 TWh was generated by OPG’s coal plants in 2009.)

2016

For OPG: As noted above OPG in 2016 generated 78.2 TWh and their gross revenue was $5,653 million making their generation cost per TWh $72.3 million (7.23 cents/kWh). Included in OPG’s gross revenue was a $207 million payment for hydro spillage of 4.7 TWh due to SPG2. (surplus base-load generation).

For Bruce Nuclear: Bruce in 2016 generated 46.1 TWh at a reported cost of $66 million/TWh making so gross revenue was $3,043 million including the cost of steaming off almost 1 TWh due to SBG.

The combined costs of $5,653 from OPG plus the $3,043 million from Bruce was $8,696 million to produce 124.3 TWh making the combined cost per TWh $70 million or 7.0 cents/kWh.

Cost of the “other” generation

The all-in costs for generation for 2016 was, as noted above, $16,923 million. If one deducts the combined costs of OPG and Bruce Nuclear for their generation in 2016 ($8,696 million) the balance of $8,227 million went to pay for the 25.2 TWh produced by other generators. Simply dividing the $8,227 million by the 25.2 TWh creates a cost per TWh of $326.5 million or 32.7 cents/kWh. ***

Had the 25.2 TWh cost ratepayers $70 million/TWh, or the same as the OPG/Bruce Nuclear generation combination (25.2 TWh X $70 million = $1,764 million), Ontario ratepayers would not be on the hook for the $6.9 billion in excess costs! ($8,227 million – $1,764 million= $6,932 million or the very high $326.5 million/TWh)

In just one year’s data, compared to 2009, we have located many of the reasons for higher electricity costs. The Premier now claims $50 billion was needed to invest in transmission and generation but her “mistake” was in not seeing the costs would go up more than 83%, principally related to the acquisition of intermittent, unreliable renewable energy from wind and solar!

There may be even more elephants in this particular room.elephant in the room 2

*The choice of 2009 is related to the Legislative passage of the Green Energy and Green Economy Act (GEA) in the Spring of that year creating the FIT and MicroFIT programs and subsequent acquisition of renewable energy at above market prices.

**Surplus Base-load Generation is simply anticipated “base-load less Ontario demand”.

***The per TWh cost reflects the FIT contracted generation for industrial wind turbines, solar panels, bio-mass along with curtailed wind, conservation spending, the cost of selling our surplus power to other jurisdictions at only 15% of its cost, etc. etc.

READ AT:  https://parkergallantenergyperspectivesblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/16/premier-wynnes-50-billion-elephant/

 

Behind the scenes at Premier Wynne’s news conference

wind-blown

Parker Gallant Energy Perspectives

March 8, 2017

While the Premier was promising relief for Ontario electricity customers (and blaming lots of other people), more proof of the government’s mistakes was occurring …

The press conference and press release on March 2nd for Premier Wynne’s announcement on reducing electricity bills by 25% took a full hour — she and Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault hung around to answer questions from the media.

The speech and the press release were a mea culpa — she apparently hadn’t noticed rates had climbed and referred to those high rates as the “elephant in the room.” She laid the blame on all previous governments in her answers to questions, for example:

Decades of under-investment in the electricity system by governments of all stripes resulted in the need to invest more than $50 billion in generation, transmission and distribution assets to ensure the system is clean and reliable.

The decision to eliminate Ontario’s use of coal and produce clean, renewable power, as well as policies put in place to provide targeted support to rural and low-income customers, have created additional costs.

If the premier was genuinely interested in the cause for high electricity bills she could have looked no farther back than her immediate predecessor, Dalton McGuinty. Premier McGuinty brought Ontario the Green Energy Act and the misinformed, unfounded belief that getting power from industrial wind turbines and solar panels, while paying at price multiples of other available reliable power, would work!

Those wind turbines and solar panels were generating power out of phase with Ontario demand even during her news conference, for which ratepayers are paying as much as 80.2 cents a kilowatt hour (kWh).

During the news conference hour, Ontario ratepayers consumed 17,300 megawatt hours (MWh); 85% of that consumption was provided by nuclear (10,000 MWh) and hydro (4,900 MWh). The balance came from gas, wind, solar and biomass. The average generation cost of nuclear and hydro generation was about $59/MWh (5.9 cents/kWh) and $191/MWh (19.1 cents/kWh) for the 15% provided by gas, wind, solar and biomass. The former costs include the “water tax” on hydro generation and the “decommissioning and fuel disposal” costs of nuclear whereas the latter does NOT include the cost of curtailed wind, idling costs of gas plants or the costs of moving those two gas plants from Oakville and Mississauga to save Liberal seats during the McGuinty era!

Also during that hour, Ontario exported 1,075 MWh to Michigan and 1,203 MWh to New York. Those 2,078 MWh (20% of Ontario’s demand) were sold to our neighbours at an average of $11.38/MWh (1.14 cents/kWh). The exports cost about $202,000, under the contract terms, yet resulted in just $23,000 of revenue to offset that cost. Ontario ratepayers picked up the loss of $179,000.

In fact, for that whole day, “net exports” hit Ontario’s ratepayers with a cost of $2.4 million.

Admitting she made a “mistake” while blaming decades of previous “governments of all stripes” is not a solution. And the 25% reduction in bills isn’t real, either: Premier Wynne is kicking the can down the road and laying the burden of her mistake on taxpayers. She still doesn’t appear to have the political courage to admit she, Mr. McGuinty and their governments made a mistake believing the environmental non-government organizations who persuaded them to believe in a green dream that has now, negatively affected all ratepayers in the province, driving away jobs in the private sector.

The herd of elephants is still in the room. Premier Wynne should start clearing them out by cancelling all wind and solar contracts that have not put a shovel in the ground!

Source: Behind the scenes at Premier Wynne’s news conference

CANCEL WIND AND SOLAR CONTRACTS!!!

Toolkit for Turbines

house-surrounded-by-wind-turbines“Pressures to stop (new) wind energy production in Ontario have increased significantly since the controversial GEA. “

Opposition to wind turbines is facing a growing resistance not just in Ontario but globally. The acceptance and excitement over using an alternative way to generate electricity has  given way to the bitter nightmare  faced by abutting residents who are adversely impacted by these massive and intrusive structures. Courts worldwide are increasingly rendering decisions to compensate families and individuals who have been harmed.

The Toolkit document opines (give it a read and try not to choke on the obvious) as to why a few (smaller) turbines in a less densely populated rural area will meet with less resistance than clusters of hundreds (increasingly larger machines) placed adjacent to towns and settled areas.   It is suggested that entering into a more intimate relationship with wind development will mitigate the harms of not being able to give consent.

This is a false and misleading conclusion as landowners who host wind turbines have given witness that they too were harmed even when money was received.

“The ultimate goal is fairer and much less divisive turbine facility siting outcomes when governments and communities themselves decide that turbine development is the policy path they wish to pursue.”  Toolkit for Turbines: Wind Energy Development in Ontario and Nova Scotia, Canada

Harm from wind power will not be remedied with the stated goal. The document fails to address a fundamental flaw in reasoning- which is to examine if turbines justify the negative documented outcomes. Simply put the wind turbines are not fit for purpose. To continue to pursue an energy policy that accepts inflicting harm on a few without remedy and without proven benefits for the greater good is wilful blindness.

protest_02_72cd1___gallery
Protesters demonstrated in Oakville where Premier Kathleen Wynne was the guest speaker at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon.

Can’t Make This One Up

The absurdity for money making associated with wind power knows no limits.  Now you can purchase insurance to protect and maintain your cash flow when that pesky thing called weather interferes with your renewable energy installation.  No need to fret over wind or sun resources above or below par. Maintaining financial performance even with the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow (or blows too fast).

Weather Risk Transfer:

“For businesses and entities working in the renewable energy sector, the single greatest and most significant factor influencing availability and performance is weather. Wind and hydroelectric generators, in particular, face a persistent challenge as they look to manage the intermittency of wind and water resources.”

Source: http://www.gcube-insurance.com/en/coverage/weather-risk-transfer/ 

 

 

 

Controversial Donation tangles Lambton County Council

How does Lambton County end up taking money from a wind project it has been engaged in supporting residents bitter opposition to?  The County is being taken to task  over its recent action.  A staff report is to look at the process of how such tainted donations are accepted.

 

Agreeing that it’s too late to change the past, Lambton County Council has set new guidelines for handling possible donations from wind power companies.

Lambton’s Creative County Fund accepted a $200,000 donation from the Cedar Point II Wind Power Project in December.

Members of county council were not informed and many expressed concerns after, given the history of the project in Lambton County.

Sarnia Mayor Mike Bradley hopes it never happens again.

“I think there was a great deal of disappointment and anger here, that the donation was accepted from a corporation, the industrial wind turbine group, who this county has been opposed to over the last three years and have gone to the courts to support the different organizations that have been fighting these industrial wind turbines,” says Bradley.

In the future, council has decided that all donations and financial or policy decisions pertaining to industrial wind turbines will be referred to county council.

County council also endorsed a motion from St. Clair Township Mayor Steve Arnold, asking staff for a report on how the donation receipt process works.

READ AT: http://blackburnnews.com/sarnia/sarnia-news/2017/02/01/county-sets-new-guidelines-controversial-donation/

Residents already tapped Out

image3
Transmission poles for Niagara Wind in West Lincoln, Ontario

Grimsby Lincoln News   Re. An investment in the future, Letter, Jan. 10:

I disagree with the mayor about the future of West Lincoln.

Our council has taken on a project estimated to cost $23.6 million with no firm plan except that they have set their sights on achieving a new arena and recreation complex before the next election.

In 2015, council turned down a proposal for a $14-million complex because funding was not complete, and now they have plans for a $23.6-million complex and still have no funding in place, no business plan, and no estimate of operating expenses. They have, however, decided to place all funds they anticipate receiving from the wind projects: the Community Impact Fund, the Road Use Agreement, and the funds equal to the replacement of the 7,000 trees removed by the wind company, into the project.

Council also brags about the 3.5 per cent tax increase to the 2017 budget as the final increase when they are actually planning a 13.6 per cent increase phased in over three years.

Now they are asking this community to start fundraising. Many of us have spent thousands of our own dollars (and thousands of hours of our time) on just attempting to keep the wind company compliant with no help from this township. Residents of West Lincoln have had to put their own funds into purchasing noise monitoring equipment, with no support from our council. Our council never done anything to help the residents of West Lincoln, except to sign the documents allowing them to collect the bribe money from the project.

West Lincoln in 2017 has 49 industrial wind turbines, miles of transmission lines, guard rails and utility poles, and families facing problems with water quality, noise, shadow flicker, sleeplessness, health issues and stress.

I expect to see more and more issues with the wind projects in the future and huge tax increases for years to come just to maintain this recreational complex.

Nellie DeHaan, Smithville

Published January 17, 2017

New Year New Resolve

dscn1859The Multi Municipal Group is starting off the New Year with a public declaration and continued resolve to fix Ontario’s Green Energy Act.

January 3 2017

Public Declaration Concerning : the exploitation of rural Ontario by the Government of Ontario and the wind power development industry

 

 

Electricity Costs Kills Belgium Hall

c03nkm8xgaajg0j

You Wynne We Lose. Sign outside Delhi Belgium Hall

Electricity Costs bring down Delhi Community Hall

It is claimed wind projects bring many economic benefits in a green economy to society but in reality they are killing the economic viability for many community groups. Expensive renewable energy contracts are a driving force pointed at as responsible for escalating the costs of electricity beyond sustainability.  Green ideology tearing apart the binding fabric of our communities one after another and another.

Club gives tip of the hat to Premier Wynne

By Monte Sonnenberg, Simcoe Reformer Thursday, December 29, 2016 6:15:22 EST PM

There will be no more banquets, wedding receptions, concerts, trade shows or public meetings at the Delhi Belgian Hall for the foreseeable future.

However, the Shields & Friends Lounge in the lower level of the sprawling complex will continue receiving patrons and serving drinks into 2017.

That according to the bar’s manager Kim Starling. Starling was hired in October soon after the Belgian Club announced it was pondering its future in the face of punishing utility bills and declining rentals.

In late October, the club executive announced that its financial problems were insurmountable and that the historic property would be sold.

They weren’t bluffing. Today, a sign is posted out front advertising the 30,000-square-foot building for sale. The asking price, according to the realtor’s website, is $899,000.

There is also a second sign out front expressing the club’s bitterness over skyrocketing electricity prices and what that has done to the hall’s viability as a community centre.

The sign says: “Hydro One 2016: $49,559. You Wynne, We Lose.”

Some of the hall’s monthly hydro bills this year were as high as $5,700. Even with 1,200 members, the club concluded it can’t go on carrying a burden like this.

The timing of the hydro whammy is especially unfortunate. The hall’s heating-ventilation-air conditioning system needs to be replaced. The building’s electrical system also needs updating.

If the club finds a buyer, Starling hopes the hall can continue forward in its current format.

“That would be nice,” she said Friday. “That’s how I’d like it to be. I’d hate to see the building go.”

In its promotional literature, realtor CBRE Ltd. of London says the 1.78-acre package has a lot of potential uses.

CBRE notes that 360 James Street has a service commercial zoning. In Norfolk County, this allows for a wide range of commercial applications.

The property, CBRE adds, comes with a “large lot with plenty of excess land for parking or further development.”

The Belgian Hall was founded in 1948 as a meeting place for the wave of Belgian families that settled in this part of southern Ontario after the Second World War. The hall earned a reputation in southern Ontario in the 1970s as a premier showcase for up-and-coming rock bands.

Acts that performed at the Belgian Hall include Ronnie Hawkins, Rush, Lighthouse, The Stampeders, April Wine, Max Webster, Blood, Sweat & Tears, and Bachman-Turner Overdrive.

MSonnenberg@postmedia.com

READ AT: http://www.simcoereformer.ca/2016/12/29/club-gives-tip-of-the-hat-to-premier-wynne

Big Oil turns on to wind power

swindle-bus-311Big oil and its relationship to wind power is not new for opponents of wind turbine projects. Community groups opposing harmful impacts of wind power will enviably face inaccurate accusations they are puppets funded by big oil masters. Careful examination of parent companies of wind facilities in Ontario find the limited partnerships are often cleaved from entities using fossil fuel power generation as its principle source for profit making. Electricity made in these companies power plants is done mainly by using fossil fuels (such as natural gas). It has been claimed that the big oil incorporations not only follow the lure of subsidies but they also helped to create the current political stage and renewable energy policies.  This in turn fuels the spin of green energy money markets. Following the money it is clear making money remains the primary goal. Managing the marketing of big oil’s image held by consumers makes how electricity is generated just an after thought.

“It remains unclear if offshore wind can be a steady moneymaker without government support, which besides tax credits and minimum rates can include guaranteed access to power grids.”

Oil producers turn to wind power 

Credit:  Zeke Turner, Sarah Kent | Dow Jones | December 27, 2016 | www.theaustralian.com.au ~~

The Netherlands wants to build the world’s largest offshore wind project, and an unlikely company is helping: Royal Dutch Shell.

The oil-and-gas giant is facing shareholder pressure to develop its renewable business. Add in falling construction costs for such projects, and Shell has decided to join a handful of other oil companies aiming to leverage their experience drilling under punishing conditions at sea.

Norway’s Statoil is already building its third offshore wind farm, in the Baltic Sea, and is developing the world’s first floating wind farm off the east coast of Scotland. Denmark’s state-owned Dong Energy – once a fossil-fuel champion – is now the biggest player in the offshore wind market.

A Shell-led consortium won a bid this month to build and operate a portion of the Netherlands’ giant Borssele wind project in the North Sea. Once complete, the Shell-built section will generate enough power for roughly a million homes at a price of €54.5 ($A79.20) per megawatt hour – a customer rate approaching that of cheaper power sources like coal or gas.

Offshore wind’s competitiveness is highly subject to local power prices and government measures, including tax credits, subsidies and rate guarantees. Nonetheless, in European markets, the wind industry had thought near parity was years away.

“Right now the offshore wind project is competitive with any power source,” said Dorine Bosman, Shell’s manager developing its wind business.

Offshore windpower projects involve driving steel foundations into the sea floor for towers that support building-size turbines with propellers wider than the wingspan of an Airbus A380. Though historically more expensive to build than onshore wind farms, offshore projects can take advantage of less restricted space and stronger, more consistent winds.

The technological arms race to build these complex projects economically is so heated that many companies, including Shell, won’t disclose how much they are investing, treating their commitments like a trade secret.

Fossil-fuel companies’ push into wind reflects their growing sensitivity to global efforts to limit climate change and how that will affect consumer demand for their main offering: oil and gas.

France’s Total wants 20 per cent of its portfolio to consist of low-carbon businesses within the next 20 years. Shell established a new division this year focused on investing in sources such as wind, solar and biofuels. Statoil has a $US200 million fund for projects such as wind technology and batteries.

Investments by big European oil companies in wind and other renewable energy sources remain small – around 2 per cent of their overall capital-spending budgets, according to McKinsey. The industry is cautious about betting big on alternatives after getting burned in the past.

It remains unclear if offshore wind can be a steady moneymaker without government support, which besides tax credits and minimum rates can include guaranteed access to power grids.

“It should be the ambition of everybody to not have subsidies,” Ms Bosman of Shell said.

Lower costs – brought on by technological improvements, economies of scale and low interest rates – are helping move the sector in that direction. Earlier this year the windpower industry was targeting a price of €100 per megawatt hour by 2020; subsequently three auctions of project rights this year in the Netherlands and Denmark settled on rates below that level.

Shell previously pulled back from involvement in offshore wind that proved unprofitable and says it will be primarily an oil-and-gas supplier for decades to come. But the improving economics of wind power have prompted the company to dip its toe back in the water, joining others in crowding the heavily subsidised specialists that once dominated the sector.

Dong Energy has sold off a large portion of its fossil-fuels business, including five Norwegian oil and gas fields, and now has 29 per cent of the world’s built offshore wind capacity, according to spokesman Tom Lehn-Christiansen. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. took an ownership stake in Dong Energy in 2014, and the company went public in June.

Statoil has invested $US2.1 billion since 2010, or about 20 per cent of a single year’s capital budget, in offshore wind parks. After two years of whipsawing oil prices, offshore wind’s relatively stable prices are dreamlike for oil executives, said Irene Rummelhoff, Statoil’s executive vice president for renewables.

Even Exxon Mobil, which hasn’t put the same emphasis on renewables, has dabbled with the technology, with the idea of using floating wind turbines to help power its offshore oil and gas platforms.

Although solar power is expected to be the fastest-growing renewable energy source over the next five years, the International Energy Agency forecasts offshore wind capacity will triple by 2021. While that will remain below 1 per cent of global capacity, the growth prospects are particularly attractive in regions such as Northern Europe where sunlight is in short supply for half the year.

Japan, China, India and Taiwan are all poised to place bets on offshore wind now that its cost is coming down, according to the industry group Global Wind Energy Council.

In the US, President-elect Donald Trump has been sceptical of wind power, warning of its cost, unsightliness and risks to wildlife. However, Texas was a forerunner of onshore wind energy in the US under the watch of former governor Rick Perry, Mr Trump’s pick to lead the Energy Department.

Offshore wind in the US got a boost this month when the country’s first park went online off the coast of Block Island, Rhode Island. Days later, Statoil won a bid for a potential project in the Atlantic Ocean south of Long Island – its first offshore wind lease in the US.

Jeffrey Grybowski, CEO of Deepwater Wind, which developed the Block Island project, said the oil companies will face a tougher landscape in the US compared with Europe because of bureaucratic hurdles and fewer incentives.

“We think our competitors are going to have a lot to learn,” he said.

Dow Jones Newswires

Source:  Zeke Turner, Sarah Kent | Dow Jones | December 27, 2016 | www.theaustralian.com.au