Email discussions.
California Offshore Nuclear Versus Wind Projects Offshore Nuclear Power Walter Horsting November 11, 2023 Example of MSR power barges vs. Wind An alternate to California's proposed 4.2 GW offshore wind project: 4.2 GWs = roughly 680 6MW turbines or 252 17MW turbines ● Miles offshore with an expensive undersea power network ● No thermal use for industry ● Radar Interference is a security threat ● Intermittent low-density Energy Vs The least impacting energy source on nature: https://businessdevelopmentinternational.biz/seaborg-co/ ● 21 Seaborg 200 MW CMSR p over barges or 5 GW CMSR power barges ● Float them into any sea or river port near the local grid ● 24-year return to the shipyard for recycling ● Thermal Industrial and Desalination use ● The least impacting energy source on nature ● 24/7/365 Energy inexpensive as Coal 1
Taking into account productivity for the same power output, the installation and running of: ● Onshore Wind power is ~7 times the cost of Gas-firing ● Offshore Wind power is ~16-20 times the cost of Gas-firing. ● Solar power is about ~10-12 times the cost of Gas-firing ● https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/22/weather-dependentpower-generation/ ● Using Batteries costs $358 to store 5 CENTS worth of electricity.
California Offshore Wind Projects David Wojick November 11, 2023 "I say projected because no utility-scale floating wind facility exists in the world today. BOEM is talking about quickly building thousands of MegaWatts (MW) of floating wind. Five leases pegged at 3,600 MW have already been sold off California. But as Rucker points out, the biggest facility in the world today is an experimental 88 MW and that just fired up a few months ago. Those five California leases are, in effect, experimental. The developers are each going to try to produce an economically viable floating wind facility. As things stand, the odds are very long against them. I can hardly wait to see the Construction and Operations Plans, which are the first required step in the long road toward project approval. But the ultimate crunch point is selling the juice via a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). If costs run three times regular offshore wind, which is already extremely expensive, then the required PPAs might simply be unobtainable.
2
However, California just passed a law allowing the State to directly buy offshore wind energy. Perhaps the plan is for the State to buy horrendously expensive electricity, sell it to the utilities at the much lower going wholesale rate, then let the taxpayers eat the losses. It is, after all, Crazy California." From https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/09/cfact-blasts-feds-floatingwind-fantasy/
3