World’s First Floating Wind Farm Exceeds Expectations

EcoWatch

World’s First Floating Wind Farm Exceeds Expectations

By Lorraine Chow      February 16, 2018

The world’s first floating wind farm only switched on three months ago but it’s already performing better than expected—and that’s despite a hurricane, a powerful winter storm and waves as high as 8.2 meters (27 feet).

The 30-megawatt Hywind Scotland, located about 15 miles off the Aberdeenshire coast, churned out 65 percent of its maximum theoretical capacity during November, December and January, according to its operator, Statoil.

In comparison, the typical capacity factor for a bottom fixed offshore wind farm is 45-60 percent during the same winter months, Statoil pointed out.

“We have tested the Hywind technology in harsh weather conditions for many years and we know it works,” said Beate Myking, senior vice president of offshore wind operations in Statoil.

“It is very encouraging to see how well the turbines have performed so far. Hywind Scotland’s high availability has ensured that the volume of electricity generated is substantially higher than expected.”

These results show great promise for the emerging technology. As EcoWatch previously detailed, floating turbines have been deployed before, but mostly in small-scale projects, such as the 7-megawatt system built and operated by the Fukushima Wind Offshore Consortium. In contrast, the Hywind’s five floating turbines produce 6 megawatts each on top of waters more than 328 feet deep. At full capacity, the facility can generate enough power for 20,000 homes.

As Bloomberg explained, typical offshore wind farms are installed on seabeds in relatively shallow seas. But with a floating system, countries like Japan, the U.S. West Coast, and the Mediterranean—where seabeds drop steeply off the coast—can also utilize the technology.

Statoil sees “great potential” to build more floating wind farms on top of waters around 200 feet in depth, even in areas with extreme environments and weather conditions. In October, the Hywind survived Hurricane Ophelia‘s 77 mph winds. It then faced even stronger winds in December, with Storm Caroline’s 100 mph gusts and walls of large waves. Although the farm’s wind turbines were shut down during the worst of these winds, they automatically resumed operations afterwards, Statoil said.

“Knowing that up to 80 percent of the offshore wind resources globally are in deep waters (+60 meters) where traditional bottom fixed installations are not suitable, we see great potential for floating offshore wind, in Asia, on the west coast of North America and in Europe,” said Irene Rummelhoff, executive vice president for New Energy Solutions in Statoil.

The developers are looking to expand the technology and hope to reduce the costs of energy to €40-60 ($50-$75)/MWh by 2030, making it cost competitive with other renewable energy sources. The cost of onshore and offshore wind has seen significant reductions in recent years, with the UK’s latest renewable energy auction dropping to 57.50 pounds ($76) per megawatt-hour, Bloomberg noted.

“This is an ambitious, but realistic target. Optimized design, larger and more efficient turbines, technology development and larger wind parks will drive down costs, improve infrastructure and logistics,” Rummelhoff said.

Estimate shows rooftop solar could produce almost 40 percent of our electricity.

ars technica – Max Effect

A solar panel on every roof in the U.S. Here are the numbers.

Estimate shows rooftop solar could produce almost 40 percent of our electricity.

Scott K. Johnson     February 16, 2018

Jon Callas

When you’re scoping out possible futures, it’s useful to ask a lot of “what if?” questions. For example, what if we could install solar panels on every suitable roof in the United States? How much electricity would they generate?

Plenty of research has followed this line of thought, though much of it has necessarily focused on working out the details for individual cities or regions. But now with enough of these studies in the bank, a group of researchers from the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory decided to take another whack at a national estimate.

There are a lot of things you need to know to do this: number of buildings, size of roofs, direction the roofs are facing, strength of sunlight, number of sunny days, and so on. So first off, the researchers took advantage of a Department of Homeland Security program that laser-maps buildings, which now covers almost a quarter of buildings in the US. From this, it’s possible to get roof area, roof tilt, roof direction, and whether the roof is shaded by trees. Roofs were tossed out if they were too small, too steep, north-facing, or otherwise would lose more than 20 percent of their possible solar output, but most roofs were suitable.

To estimate the rest of the country, the researchers calculated statistics for the covered area and then used things like Census data to scale them for every other ZIP code area.

Next, the researchers worked out the average amount of sunlight in a year for each location. Using the average efficiency of rooftop solar panels installed in 2015, they combined everything to produce a map of maximum possible rooftop solar energy production.

In total, they estimate that there are a little over 8 billion square meters of suitable roofs in the US. Cover that in solar panels, and you would produce about 1,400 terawatt hours of electricity each year—about two-thirds of which would come from small residential buildings. The total production is equal to nearly 40 percent of the total electricity currently sold by utilities in the US.

A simpler 2008 National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimate came in at just 22 percent of electricity—the new estimate shows a higher percentage partly because solar panel efficiency has improved but also because new sources of data made a more accurate estimate possible.

Total estimated rooftop solar production by state (top), also shown as a percentage of total electricity use (bottom).
Enlarge / Total estimated rooftop solar production by state (top), also shown as a percentage of total electricity use (bottom).
Gagnon et al/Environmental Research Letters

 

Apart from the big numbers, there are some interesting details at the state or local level. States with strong sunlight and plenty of roofs obviously have the most potential—California, for example, could supply 74 percent of its total electricity use by covering its buildings with solar panels, while Wyoming could only get to about 14 percent.

But that’s partly because of different electricity use. New England doesn’t have the sunniest skies, but the limited need for air conditioning in the summer helps keep electricity use down. As a result, that region could produce about half its total electricity from rooftop solar. And if you consider residential buildings separately, they can produce about as much electricity as people use in their homes.

Overall, the all-in scenario of slapping solar panels on every single building wouldn’t be enough to replace all our power plants, but 40 percent ain’t bad. More plausible (and less Fiddler-on-the-Roof-If-I-Were-a-Rich-Man) scenarios would obviously stay south of that number. Still, the “what if?” is instructive.

If Pruitt Attempts to Muck Up Our Environment, People Will Be Angry!

HuffPost

EPA Says Scott Pruitt Flies First Class Because Angry People Yell At Him Too Much

Nick Visser, HuffPost          February 16, 2018 

Often costing thousands of dollars more than equivalent seats in coach. The report, citing EPA receipts obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, noted several flights cost more than $90,000 in total during a few weeks last June.

Federal regulations mandate government employees travel in the “least expensive class of travel” for their needs, but individuals are allowed to book premium seats if there are security concerns.

The EPA briefly said this week Pruitt had a “blanket wavier” to travel first class but later rolled back its statement when Politico noted that the regulations state that such travel must be approved on a “trip-by-trip basis.” A spokesman later clarified to the news site that Pruitt’s office submitted a waiver seeking an exemption before each trip, citing security concerns.

Until Thursday’s report, it was unclear what those concerns were, although Pruitt defended the bookings in an interview with the New Hampshire Union Leader, blaming what he called a “very toxic environment politically.”

“We’ve reached the point where there’s not much civility in the marketplace and it’s created, you know, it’s created some issues and the (security) detail, the level of protection is determined by the level of threat,” he told the Union Leader on Tuesday.

Pruitt’s tenure at the EPA over the past year has been controversial among environmentalists. The agency has quickly worked to roll back many regulations meant to combat climate change. The agency has also moved to unravel the Clean Water Act and the Clean Power Plan, and Pruitt was one of the driving forces behind President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the landmark Paris climate deal.

He receives many more threats than his predecessors, E&E News reported in January, and is the first EPA administrator to have a full-time security detail.

The agency also refuses to release many details about Pruitt’s schedule in advance, citing similar security concerns.

Counting up how much the NRA spends on campaigns and lobbying

PolitiFact

Counting up how much the NRA spends on campaigns and lobbying

By Louis Jacobson      October 11, 2017

 

How influential is the National Rifle Association? We took a closer look.

Since the mass shooting in Las Vegas, there has been much discussion about the National Rifle Association’s influence on gun policy.

In late-night host Jimmy Kimmel’s monologue about Las Vegas and the influence of the gun industry, he charged that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker Paul Ryan and other lawmakers “won’t do anything about this because the NRA has their balls in a money clip.”

New York Times columnist Bret Stephens pushed back at that notion in his “Repeal the Second Amendment” column, suggesting that gun control advocates were overstating the NRA’s money footprint.

“The National Rifle Association does not have Republican ‘balls in a money clip,’ as (late-night TV host) Jimmy Kimmel put it the other night,” Stephens wrote. “The NRA has donated a paltry $3,533,294 to all current members of Congress since 1998, according to The Washington Post, equivalent to about three months of Kimmel’s salary. The NRA doesn’t need to buy influence: It’s powerful because it’s popular.”

We found that Stephens’ characterization, while accurate, doesn’t reflect the true scope of the organization’s political heft.

“Assessing the NRA’s political spending solely by its donations to congressional candidates leaves millions in spending out,” said Alex Howard, deputy director of the Sunlight Foundation, which tracks transparency and influence in politics and policy.

For this report, we drilled further into the NRA’s political spending — including lobbying and outside spending in races —  to offer a more comprehensive view of its influence in Washington.

(The NRA didn’t respond to an inquiry for this article.)

Direct candidate contributions are not the whole story

The claim of $3.5 million in donations is based on credible data, but narrow.

The Washington Post database summarizes NRA contributions to current members of Congress, searchable by state and lawmaker, going back to 1998. (The Post database revised its total for NRA contributions to $4.23 million on its last update on Oct. 5, the same day Stephens’ column was published.)

The Post structured its database in a way to make it easy for readers to search for how much their representative or senator received from the NRA.

That means the database won’t allow searches for NRA donations to previous members of Congress who were serving for a portion of that almost 20-year period. If you include these members, the amount of contributions increases substantially.

The Post’s focus on members of Congress also means it doesn’t include NRA donations to candidates for federal offices other than Congress, or to parties or party committees.

If you add together all of the NRA’s contributions to candidates, parties and leadership political action committees between 1998 and 2016, it comes to more than $13 million, according to calculations from the Center for Responsive Politics’ database.

That’s more than three and a half times larger than their direct contributions to current members of Congress.

But there’s more.

NRA spends millions more intervening in campaigns and lobbying

The NRA’s biggest chunk of spending on politics came from “outside spending,” consisting largely of “independent expenditures” — efforts “expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate.” Often these take the form of campaign ads, but they are carried out without coordinating with the candidates they are supporting.

This type of spending vastly outpaces what the NRA spent on giving to candidates directly. The NRA spent $144.3 million on outside spending, such as independent expenditures, during that period.

In addition, the NRA since 1998 has reported spending a cumulative $45.9 million on federal lobbying, both for its in-house operations and the outside consultants it has retained.

If you add it all up — candidate and party contributions, independent expenditures, and lobbying — the NRA has spent $203.2 million on political activities since 1998.

It’s time for us to start voting for politicians who do not live in the pocket of the NRA.

Chelsea Handler

October 5, 2017

It’s time for us to start voting for politicians who do not live in the pocket of the NRA.

Chelsea on Ending Gun Violence

It's time for us to start voting for politicians who do not live in the pocket of the NRA.

Posted by Chelsea Handler on Thursday, October 5, 2017

The politicians who keep blocking gun safety laws all have this one thing in common.

ATTN: Video

February 15, 2018

The politicians who keep blocking gun safety laws all have this one thing in common.

The politicians who keep blocking gun safety laws all have this one thing in common.

The politicians who keep blocking gun safety laws all have this one thing in common.

Posted by ATTN: Video on Thursday, February 15, 2018

Steve Kerr has an excellent idea to solve our mass shooting epidemic.

act.tv

February 15, 2018

Golden State Warriors coach Steve Kerr has an excellent idea to solve our mass shooting epidemic.

Steve Kerr has a message for our politicians

Golden State Warriors coach Steve Kerr has an excellent idea to solve our mass shooting epidemic.

Posted by act.tv on Thursday, February 15, 2018

Sheriff promises Florida vigil attendees: Politicians ‘will not get re-elected’ if gun laws don’t change

Good Morning America

Sheriff promises Florida vigil attendees: Politicians ‘will not get re-elected’ if gun laws don’t change

Julia Jacobo, Good Morning America      February 16, 2018

Florida school shooting victims identified as families, community grieve

“Republicans will never do anything on gun control,”

CNN

February 15, 2018

“Republicans will never do anything on gun control,” says former GOP Rep. David Jolly. “The idea of gun policy in the Republican party is to try to get a speaking slot at the NRA and prove to that constituency that you are further right.”

"Republicans will never do anything on gun control," says former GOP Rep. David Jolly. "The idea of gun policy in the Republican party is to try to get a speaking slot at the NRA and prove to that constituency that you are further right."

Posted by CNN on Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Jimmy Kimmel gets emotional in call for action on gun violence: ‘Children are being murdered’

Good Morning America

Jimmy Kimmel gets emotional in call for action on gun violence: ‘Children are being murdered’

Mark Osborne, Good Morning America      February 15, 2018

Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel slammed President Donald Trump and Congress over inaction on gun control Thursday night in the wake of the shooting at a Florida high school which killed 17 people on Valentine’s Day.