Connect with us

Published

on

Weather Guard Lightning Tech

Enel vs. The Osage Nation: An Explanation w/ Doug Sandridge

A lawsuit has been unfolding between the Osage Nation and Enel since 2010, potentially ending with Enel dismantling their 150 MW wind farm. What can wind developers learn from this? How can they avoid these situations moving forward? Expert Doug Sandridge explains the intricacies of Native land rights in the US and why understanding those rights is crucial to expanding the wind industry. Follow Doug on Substack, Linkedin or reach out via email doug@fulcrumef.com.

Sign up now for Uptime Tech News, our weekly email update on all things wind technology. This episode is sponsored by Weather Guard Lightning Tech. Learn more about Weather Guard’s StrikeTape Wind Turbine LPS retrofit. Follow the show on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Linkedin and visit Weather Guard on the web. And subscribe to Rosemary Barnes’ YouTube channel here. Have a question we can answer on the show? Email us!

Pardalote Consulting – https://www.pardaloteconsulting.com
Weather Guard Lightning Tech – www.weatherguardwind.com
Intelstor – https://www.intelstor.com

Allen Hall: Welcome to the Uptime Wind Energy Podcast. I’m your host, Allen Hall, joined by my co host, Joel Saxum. Today, we’re diving into a complex and significant issue at the intersection of renewable energy development and Native American rights. Our guest is Doug Sandridge, a veteran of the energy industry with over 40 years of experience.

Doug is currently the senior vice president at Fulcrum Energy Capital Funds, overseeing land operations and strategy for this private equity firm that invests in energy assets across North America. He’s also an adjunct instructor for the executive MBA and energy program at the University of Oklahoma.

And I’ve only heard good things about that, Doug. Today, Doug will be sharing his insights on the ongoing dispute between the Osage Nation and Enel Green Energy regarding the Osage Wind Project. And this project, which consists of 84 wind turbines, has become the center of a long legal battle that touches on critical issues of tribal mineral rights.

and the development of wind energy on Native American lands. Doug, with his extensive background in land management, regulatory compliance, and stakeholder relations, is uniquely positioned to help us understand the complexities of this case and its potential for implications for the future of wind energy development.

Welcome to Uptime.

Doug Sandridge: Man, it’s a great pleasure to be here. And I don’t think I’ve ever had a better introduction. Wow, can I? Thank you so much. That’s great.

Joel Saxum: You can play that one the next time you start a new class at the University of Oklahoma. Where you walk in, turn the lights down a little bit, and play the clip.

Doug Sandridge: Excellent.

Allen Hall: So thanks for being here. And you and I have been corresponding for quite a while now. About what is happening in Oklahoma and for those outside of the United States, Oklahoma is right smack dab in the middle of the continental United States. And it has a unique history. It’s different than pretty much any other state in the U.

S. Because of its history with Native American tribes. And this has led to some unique situations, which now, it now is in the middle of. And Doug, I want to walk through just the basics of what happened on the O. C. A. When project here, and maybe you could just introduce that background and how we got to where we are today.

Doug Sandridge: Absolutely. And I just want to start by saying whatever we say here today, I don’t want it to be reflected as some sort of black eye or. A a bad image for wind in general, this is just an isolated, unique situation, a unique case, and we should not paint the wind industry or the renewable industry with a broad brush thinking that this is how things are done.

We just happen to have a unfortunate situation taking place in Osage County, Oklahoma. Osage tribe is located primarily in a county in northeastern Oklahoma near Tulsa called Osage County and that’s their tribal reservation. They actually bought that reservation from the Cherokee tribe.

The Osage were originally located in the Missouri, Ohio Valley area of Missouri and then were relocated to southeastern Kansas. For And then white western European encroachment kept pushing on them, and the federal government decided that they wanted that land that was the Osage reservation in southeastern Kansas, they wanted that for white settlers.

And so they, federal government actually purchased that reservation from the Osage, and with the money that they had from that sale they purchased their own reservation in what is now Oklahoma. At the time, Oklahoma was not a state, it was called the Indian Territory, and it was called the Indian Territory because that was in a real crass way, where the U.

S. had been pushing so many tribes. From the southeastern United States, from central United States, even from the northern United States, they were pushing them all into this small area called Oklahoma, or called Indian Territory, which is now Oklahoma. Cherokee Nation had a huge reservation, and they sold one some land to the Osage, and that Osage became Os, what is current day Osage County, and that that became the permanent reservation for the Osage tribe.

So that’s how we got to where we are. And the Osage tribe, when they when they bought the land, they were still considered a sovereign nation by the United States. And so they had their own rules, their own laws, and they governed themselves in that county in Oklahoma, in Osage County. But as the U. S.

was trying to assimilate the Native Americans or first Americans, into the greater United States culture. They were trying to get tribes to give up their tribal sovereignty for citizenship. And so what happened is they basically went to the tribe and said, We will make you U. S. citizens if you’ll do X, Y, and Z.

And what they ended up doing is, as they say, allotted, they gave all the land in Osage County was allotted to all of the members of the tribe at that time. So the surface of the land, all of the surface, was divided equally or fairly equally among all the tribal members. And so they all own that land.

They could do with it whatever they want. They could live on it. They could sell it. They could farm it, ranch it. And as it happens, a lot of the surface has over the last hundred years. has gone out of the tribe. The tribe no, tribal members no longer own a lot of the surface. A lot of the surface is owned by farmers and ranchers and white people and not basically non Osage.

I don’t know what the percentage is. I’m guessing probably at least 80 or 90 percent of the surface in Osage County is actually owned by non Osage. But a lot, a lot of the county is still governed. You still run by owned by and operated by and the communities are Osage there still but they own the surface.

But the critical point is at the time of allotment, the Osage tribe negotiated with the federal government and basically the government agreed that the Osage tribe as a whole would keep all of the minerals. And they would hold those minerals in trust for all of the Osage tribal members. The individual tribal members owned the surface.

This person owned this section, somebody else owned something else. But the minerals underlying that each of the entire county was retained by the tribe. And the tribe had the right to, to lease it for oil and gas, lease it for mining, for whatever purposes. And you can’t do any business related to the minerals in Osage County without dealing with the Osage tribe.

Doug, can I ask you a question

Joel Saxum: about this then? Because when we talked a little bit in a pre interview process, just walking through this thing, that was, like, like you said, they watch the other tribes do certain things. But there’s a certain, there’s four or five other tribes in the area, and they’re Ownership of their lands or their tribal rights to the surface or subsurface is different than what the Osage negotiated with the Osage have.

Can you explain the difference there?

Doug Sandridge: Yes. And there, there are very multiple differences. For instance, the the so called wild tribes, which are the tribes of Western Oklahoma that were the Apache, the Comanche, the Kiowa the Arapaho, those tribes. At the time, it was believed that they had not been exposed to Western law and Western customs enough to deal in their own real property.

And in order to protect them from being swindled by, Westerners by Western Europeans the entire process of leasing from them was maintained by the federal government, so the Bureau of Indian Affairs. So even today, I believe. If you want to lease anything, even if someone, even if an Indian or a Native American owns those rights individually, they are not permitted to lease them because they’re still governed by the process of the Bureau of Indian Affairs monitoring managing their affairs for them.

And so then, but in any event, all of the different tribes have different rules that are there that are assessed to their, but the unique the Osage have a unique situation. And I. I said in my Substack article, I studied Indian law a long time ago at University of Oklahoma, and the general takeaway from it was you had three types of law in Oklahoma.

You had the law of the civilized tribes, which was the Cherokee, the Choctaw, the Chickasaw, the Creek, and the Seminole Indians. Those tribes were tribes that had been affected by and been around Western civilization for a lot longer because they were on the East Coast. And so they had become, these are not my words, but in the words of the government, it had become more civilized and so those so called, not my words of legal words of art, those so called civilized tribes were moved to Oklahoma, but they had different rights than the wild tribes and the wild tribes had different rights.

So you had three types of law, the law of the civilized tribes, the law of the wild tribes. And then the law of the Osage, which was different than everyone else. They were unique.

Allen Hall: Very interesting because the complexities of Oklahoma are not the complexities of the adjoining states.

And I think this is where Enel had problems. So In about 2010, Enel leased about 8, 400 acres in Osage County from the land owners. So that would have been mostly outside Osage Nation people, for the most part, right?

Doug Sandridge: I understand that the majority of them were non Osage, but there were two, I believe, two tribal members who owned lands.

That did agree to lease, but generally the Osage as a, the tribe and most of the members of the tribe were against the wind turbine

Joel Saxum: project. The important thing here is

Allen Hall: they leased the surface. That’s right. Just to give some context here, Osage Nation has mineral rights about 1. 5 million acres. So 8, 400 out of 1.

5 million. It’s a small piece of a larger set of metal, right? So it’s not that big of a piece of land in contrast. However, and as you pointed out, the Osage nation went to court to stop the Enel project back in 2011. And They lost that initial suit, correct? It went for a couple of years, but they lost.

Doug Sandridge: Yeah, so what happened is, let’s just be honest, I wasn’t clear until I started interviewing members of the tribe and I, a few weeks ago, interviewed one of the former assistant chiefs of the tribe. I wasn’t certain of this, but what apparently, I think it’s a fairly accurate statement to say the tribe as a whole, the official tribe and most of the tribal members, were not interested in having wind development in their county.

And, they just they have a deep love of the land. They had a deep love of the vistas. They really just didn’t want wind development. And so I think it’s fair to say that was what they, that’s how they felt. So before Enel even began constructing the project the tribe did file a lawsuit in federal court asking the federal court to stop them from building the wind farm.

And the federal court said, look I understand your concerns and it totally legitimate. And I know there’s a lot of people who don’t want to see wind turbines, but from a legal standpoint, we have no basis to stop development of this wind farm. And they have valid leases. They have valid permits from the county authorities.

To build a wind farm. And so the federal court denied their request and returned it with a, we’re not going to, we’re not going to injunct them from building it.

Joel Saxum: So we’re in this timeframe here of 2010, they started now the wind farm that exists today, there’s a hundred or sorry, there’s 84.

84 turbines is 150 megawatt farm. It’s a bunch of GE, like 1. 7 or whatever out there, but those did not get commissioned until 2015.

Doug Sandridge: That’s correct. So they sued him in 2010 or 2011. And the court said, no, we can’t stop the construction. They have legitimate legal rights to be there. They’ve got the permits, they’ve got the leases.

And so then Enel started building the wind farm, I believe in 2013, approximately. And then it came on, I think it came on in 2014.

Allen Hall: 2014 is the critical year in all this, because at this point, the Osage noticed that, and when Enel was putting the foundations in, they were, and this territory is rocky, if you haven’t been to this county, it’s rocky, so Enel’s digging into the ground, and bringing up rocks.

And then setting them aside to put the foundation in, but in this transaction of moving the rocks, they decided to then crush the rocks and use them in the turbine installation. That’s essentially what happened. And that one move started a chain of legal proceedings. That’s correct.

Doug Sandridge: And so let’s be clear the United States is almost unique.

Most countries in the world. Private citizens and private organizations cannot own minerals. The only private mineral ownership in the world is primarily in the United States to some degree in Canada. I understand there’s a very few places in England and a few places in Australia where there’s some very old legacy mineral ownership by some old people, nobility, but basically the U S and Canada is where you have private ownership of minerals.

So a lot of people around the country, around the world have no idea that several, that minerals can be severed from the surface in this way and that there’s private

Allen Hall: ownership. That would make sense. Now the Osage noticed that, Hey, Enel is crushing the rock. Those rocks are ours. Those are not Enel’s rocks.

Doug Sandridge: That’s right. So let me throw another concept out here to understand though. If you. Allen Hall goes and buys a piece of property, and he buys a piece of land, just the surface, he doesn’t buy any minerals. And he wants to build a house, or a Kroger grocery store, or something like that. He has the right to use the subsurface a reasonable amount of the subsurface.

So you want to build a house and you want to build a basement, or you need to put a foundation down, or if you’re going to build a footer for a Kroger grocery store. So the fact that you own the surface does not mean that you don’t have the right to use a certain amount of the subsurface. You have the right to use a reasonable amount of the subsurface.

necessary for the full enjoyment of the surface. So that’s the rule, no matter where you are in the U. S., you can use subsurface. What you can’t do is use the subsurface minerals for commercial purposes. Enel starts digging these huge holes in the ground, and they have the right to do that. Even though they only own the surface, they have the right to use the subsurface to build these wind turbines.

They dig the holes, they put in steel for reinforcement, they fill it with concrete, They have the right to do all of that. There is nothing wrong with that. What they don’t have the right to do is to take the rock out of the hole, take it to a refiner, crush it, process it, refine it, sort it, and then use it for commercial purposes because that constitutes mining.

And so in this particular case, they were taking the rock and using it in a way described by the law as mining. They were mining rock. That was owned by the Osage tribe and they were mining it without a permit or the right or a license from the tribe. Now one important point is, I’d heard some people previously indicate the tribe is greedy.

They should have brought this to the attention of Enel earlier. They’re just trying to, extort them out of some money. The reality is, Immediately following the first excavation, as soon as the tribe saw that they were excavating this rock, putting it on trucks, taking it, refining it, processing it, and making it commercial quality, immediately, literally within the first few weeks, they notified Enel that what they were doing was illegal.

This isn’t something they came and did 10 years later or 3 years later, they did it immediately. And so Enel basically made their first mistake by saying, Sorry, we don’t recognize your authority. We don’t believe you. We’re going to keep mining it regardless. And so the tribe then went to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and said, Look, this is what’s happening to us.

We’re being taken advantage of. No one’s taking us seriously. Can you please intervene? And so the Bureau of Indian Affairs researched the matter themselves, came to the same conclusion that they, Enel had no right, they, Enel had the right to dig the foundations. They had the right to construct them, but they didn’t have the right to make commercial use of the rock that they excavated.

They sent a letter to Enel and told them to cease and desist. And Enel said, No they just ignored it. They went on. They ignored not only the tribe, but now they’ve ignored the Department of the Interior and the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. And so this is big mistake.

Allen Hall: I think this adds some complexity to it.

If it was a generic landowner anywhere else in the United States that was arguing about mineral rights, I could see any developer questioning that and probably getting it settled in court. In this case, the unique piece is that the Osage now have the federal government behind them with infinite resources to fight on their behalf, which is what happened.

So it’s not the Osage nation going to court to fight this. The federal government goes to court and goes after Enel.

Doug Sandridge: Yeah. So they, first of all they notified him by letter. Enel ignored it. Now, this is also important because it shows intent. Enel, I can’t speak for what Enel was doing, why they were doing it, I can only speculate.

But I have had multiple sources, including the former vice chief of the tribe, assistant chief of the tribe, and also multiple local reporters tell me that as soon as they got this letter, they started they ramped up their operations to 24 hour operations. This shows bad faith, because what they now see, they see that they’re getting challenged on this, And instead of stopping and doing the right thing and trying to make it right and trying to negotiate and try and settle, trying to do the right thing, they bring out the light plants and start constructing 24 hours a day to speed up the construction.

Presumably, I don’t know what Enel’s purpose for doing that was, but a lot of people believe they sped it up because they felt like, If we can just get this built, then nobody’s going to make us tear it down. And so that, that was the second mistake they made by doubling down and working 24 hours a day to accelerate completion of the project.

So then the federal government sued them again the first time when they were sued by the tribe, but then the federal government sued them. And originally the court ruled against the tribe. Originally said that they didn’t do anything wrong, but they persisted and the eventually the courts determined from the fact situation that Enel had in fact been illegally mining this rock.

And the irony of this is that Enel at any time could have continued to construct this wind turbine, this wind farm, they could have continued to do it legally without using that rock. And they would not be in any trouble at all. They might owe a few hundred dollars for the rock they use, but they, at any point during the time, if they made the right decision and heeded the court and heeded the tribe and heeded the Bureau of Indian Affairs and heeded the department of the interior at any time, they just finished the wind farm using legal methods, the wind farm would be fine, but instead they kept snubbing their nose at all of those agencies, government agencies, and the federal courts.

Allen Hall: Yeah, and obviously Enel’s a big corporation, right? So who in the organization was involved in that decision, that’s really hard to tell. But as a corporation, the whole corporation is held accountable for that. So it turns out to be a much more significant than they first probably thought.

But it all comes down to, and this is where the court case went, the definition of mining. That we think of mining like, Hey, we’re digging down there looking for gold, oil, anything really to get under the surface and to have a commercial purpose. The mere fact that they crushed the rock is defined as mining and used it for commercial purpose.

Joel Saxum: Yeah. So I think that there’s a, Doug, you touched on this earlier, but The definition of that separation between surface rights and mineral rights and not being known to a lot of people outside of the United States, to be honest with you, a lot of people in the United States don’t even know about that.

Like I’m from Northern Wisconsin. That’s not a thing up there, right? There’s not like people, if you say, Oh, do you own the mineral rights and the surface rights? They’re like, what are you talking about? This is my land. It’s not a, it doesn’t exist that way now. In a legal standpoint, it does exist, but people don’t recognize it.

People don’t see it so Enel again, being an Italian company and a lot of the operations being the way Enel works internally, a lot of the operations or the majority of decisions and operational decisions get made in Italy, right? Even the people that work, I’ve spoke with a lot of people that have worked for Enel in the United States, even at, Hey, do we repair this blade or not?

They make a decision and then they go, oh, we gotta get it stamped by. Italy. So we’ve got to go, we’ve got to go back there. So most of these decisions are not being made, large decisions are not being made on United States soil. They’re being made over there. So you can, I’m not making any kind of excuses here.

I’m just trying to put some context to it, right? You can see that there’s a, there’s like a, there’s a disconnect in, like you said, when they were like, we don’t value your rights or we’re not saying this because they don’t, they didn’t understand it. I think if they were to or maybe you can help us understand, consulting land men or lawyers within the, within Oklahoma that are familiar with the specific laws there.

Doug Sandridge: I think you’re right. And I have had other people in the renewal industry tell me that the companies that have the hardest time dealing with these issues are the foreign companies because it is so foreign to them, but, and so I don’t know what went on in the decision making process and now, and so we’re not going to speculate, They had a lot of really high dollar, high powered attorneys working on this over the last 10 years.

The attorneys they’ve had working on this are not your run of the mill 200 an hour attorneys. These are high powered attorneys, and so they’re either getting bad advice from these attorneys, or, I suspect, and again, we don’t know, I suspect they’re getting good advice from these attorneys, and Enel is choosing not to follow it.

We just don’t know. Yes, I think it is partly because they’re foreign countries and they don’t understand the complexities of U. S. land. But the end result is,

Joel Saxum: or the end fact is, you are doing business in the United States. You are doing business in Oklahoma, and in this case in Osage County, and you have to abide by those rules.

So you better make sure that you do. And at the end of the day, What has happened here is they’ve been ordered to remove these turbines. They’ve been ordered to basically tear this wind farm down at an estimated cost of, oh, north of 300 million. Yeah, that’s And these are, so they’re built in 2015, if we’re just looking at normal wind energy practices.

They’re 8 years, 9 years old right now. They’re probably ripe for a repower coming up. None of that really matters anymore because they’re all going to get taken down.

Doug Sandridge: Yep, they are still producing. I was, I drove through there a couple of weeks ago. I was driving from Oklahoma back to Denver where I live, and I just took a little detour, and they are still going strong, and I think this is a cautionary tale.

I don’t, this is a cautionary tale for wind and solar developers across the country, but I do want to make sure, this does not set a precedent. We’re not about to tear down all the wind farms in the United States. This is a very unique situation. This is not a precedent is going to be applied to a lot of other places.

And this is a problem that could be easily overcome. First of all, there are a lot of people, there are a lot of places where you’re building wind farms, where you don’t need to use any of the mineral estate. And I talked to several developers. They all told me if we’re going to use the rock that we’re excavating, we have a mineral permit before we even break ground.

So the normal practice in this industry. Is to do the right thing. Most people are doing the right thing. This is an isolated case. And unfortunately there’s a The truth is they would not have been asked to tear down this wind farm were it not for their arrogance and their continued fighting of this for ten years.

The judges basically said that. The judges essentially said The reason we’re having you tear it down is not because you mined the rock, we’re having you tear it down because we’ve told you over and over again for 10 years that this is illegal and you’ve continued to defy the federal court and the federal government.

Allen Hall: Doug, there are two pieces to that though and fought this for 10 years, the financial aspects, at least according to news reports, if Enel were to remove that wind farm, it would cost them about 300 million to do that. The value of the rock that they could have just brought in instead of using the rock they excavated is only about 70, 000.

So if they just brought in rock, it would have cost them about 70, 000 and all this would never have happened. So they got this 300 million issue sitting in front of them. On top of that, the Osage and the federal government on behalf of the Osage, It’s seeking damages of about 37 million, which is actually a lot less than what they started at.

It does seem likely there’s going to be penalties applied damages applied here because of this long history of not following the court’s instructions at times. So it is a huge financial impact to do this and time impact. And Joel, you’ll know typically wind turbine farms are repowered every 10 years.

So we’re into this 10 year repower situation at the minute, is there now a negotiation that happens between the Osage and Enel that goes, hey, we’re going to repower this thing, we’re going to take the turbines out, but we could keep them there and let’s negotiate this? Are they back to the negotiation because of that 10 year time,

Doug Sandridge: time span?

Personally, I don’t see that happening because the tribe has never wanted this to begin with. And you just have to get into the mindset of the Native Americans, First Americans, the Osage. They look at the world differently. And they really, this is their sacred land. And they feel like they’ve been violated.

The bald eagle is sacred to the tribe. And so Enel is gonna go get, take permits from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife to allow them to kill a certain number of bald eagles. So I think this fundamentally for the tribe, there is, I don’t think there’s any way that, this is just my sense of it. I don’t speak for the tribe in any way, but from all the people I’ve talked to, I don’t think there’s any chance that they’re going to negotiate.

They want these wind turbines gone. They want their wind turbines gone. their vistas in their sacred lands back and not scarred by this.

Joel Saxum: If you follow the history of the, any native American tribe in the country, let alone the Osage are a specific case because they have been wronged many times in the past by people from outside of the tribe.

So they’re, they have historically had some, people, Pressing on them pushing on them and doing things to them that aren’t fair to them And so they’re I would agree with you doug. I have no idea but I would say that Negotiation here is probably off the table for them.

One thing i’d like to touch on though, too So in the industry, like you said best practices what’s actually really happening on the ground in a normal case There’s a lot of really intelligent and experienced professionals like yourself You That are what we would call in like the oil and gas world, land men land men and land women.

So those people are they’re a special mix of contract, almost like a contract lawyer, real estate agent, negotiator, arbitrator Business development person, sales person, all in one, but with technical prowess. So when you run into any kind of permitting agency or environmental agency that is, hired or contracted by a developer or even on the developer’s direct team, these people do exist.

They’re very specialized. I know Doug, you have a Massive storied history of your experience in the oil and gas world Those people can come directly from that oil and gas side As well and help with the renewables because they know it very well. We’ve been doing oil and gas permitting land Negotiations for a hundred years.

So this isn’t something that’s new but it’s new in the respect of renewable energies

Doug Sandridge: It is new for renewable and let me just give you a little perspective about what we do So let’s say we want to go drill an oil and gas We say we have a place that we want to go drill. And so they send that me out as a landman to buy a lease.

I buy the right to drill that well. So I have to go out to that land, the piece of land. I have to say, okay, we’re going to drill the well here. Who owns this land? And I need to make a deal with the surface owner and the mineral owner. Cause I have to make a deal with the mineral owner and the surface owner could be the same, but if they’re not, the mineral owner owns the right to the oil.

The surface owner controls where I put my drilling rig to put it out there. So I have to go make those negotiations and determine who owns it. But what I don’t, what I don’t do is walk out there and see the little farmhouse sitting there and walk up to the farmhouse and say, Hey, knock on the door and say, Hey, we want to lease this.

And the old lady says, okay, how much are you going to pay me? And I pay her. That’s not how you do it. Because the problem is you have to know with certainty who owns that land just because she owns the farmhouse. She doesn’t necessarily own it. She might be renting it. It might be her brother’s, it might be that she owns it, but so do her other seven siblings, so you have to determine that.

So we go to a lot of trouble to figure out who the true owners of that property are to make sure that we’re buying the, because what we don’t want to do is buy it from the old lady at the farmhouse, drill a 10 million dollar well, and then find out that she didn’t have the right to lease it to you. She was just renting the property.

She presents a rent check to somebody else. So it’s very important in our industry that we identify the correct ownership right up front. And what I do see happening with some, not all, but there are some unsophisticated people in the renewal industry who are just getting in, do not understand the immense importance of understanding you’re building your wind farm or your solar farm on a piece of property that you own the rights to do because you don’t want to build it and then have to tear it out later.

And that’s what’s happening to Enel. It is important to get good land and legal advice wherever you are. And it’s different in every state. Literally the surface rights, the mineral rights are different in every state. And even in like in Oklahoma, they’re different even within the different counties.

So you have to have some local knowledge of what’s going

Joel Saxum: on. We can add some add a little bit of complexity that from my oil and gas past so people listening can understand It’s not just the subsurface That has rights. It can also be stratified layers. There can be different owners depending on depth.

So there can be someone who owns the first 500 feet, the next 5, 000 feet, and then you can get into different layers of ownership. So title research and these kinds of background things that you must do. I’ve been a part of projects where you’ve had a team of 10, 12, 15 people in courthouses for a year doing research before you even get started on the ground.

So there’s a lot of things going on behind the scenes for all kinds of development projects that people just don’t see.

Doug Sandridge: Yeah, I’ve seen places in South Texas, I personally have worked on a project where there have been 25 to 28 different stratas with different owners. So, it can’t happen, but we’re getting off the subject here.

The reality is that from a wind farm developers, they need to take seriously the land issues. They need to be sure they understand who owns it. And we just got to make sure somebody pointed out the other day. We’ve been doing this in the oil and gas business for 140 years. So we’ve developed a lot of experience doing this and the people that are getting into renewables.

Some of them are just now learning these lessons, but they can be hard lessons. And so let’s engage properly with the community. Another big problem with Enel was, is that they were basically not engaging with the local community. And I think wherever you’re working, whether it’s wind, solar, oil, you have to be good citizens.

You have to have a social license to operate and you have to operate in good faith with your community. with the people in your, in the neighborhood where you’re working.

Allen Hall: Doug, it’s been really good to have you on the podcast. I know we’ve talked a number of times, particularly about this issue and some others, so we need to get you back on the podcast, but if someone wanted to get a hold of you and pick your brain about land matters, how would they do that?

Doug Sandridge: Really the best thing is to reach out to me on LinkedIn. I’m most active on LinkedIn. You can also, I’ll, you can provide them my email address. I don’t mind people emailing me directly, linkedIn or email. I also write this. The article that you guys read was on my sub stack. So it’s called energy ruminations on sub stack.

And I write about all things energy, not just oil and gas or wind. But I write about all subjects related to energy. So subscribe to my sub stack. And I don’t write prolifically. I have a full time job like you guys do. So I write when I can. But sub stack LinkedIn or send my email is fine.

Allen Hall: Doug, thank you so much for being on the podcast.

It’s been a great discussion.

Doug Sandridge: You guys have been brilliant. Keep up the great work. I listen to you every week. Let’s stay in touch.

https://weatherguardwind.com/enel-vs-the-osage-nation-an-explanation-w-doug-sandridge/

Continue Reading

Renewable Energy

Numbers Associated with Trump’s Incompetence Are Kept Secret

Published

on

We won’t know how much damage Trump has done to our county, its people, the world in general, until Trump leaves office.

That’s just one more good reason to make this happen soon.

https://www.2greenenergy.com/2026/07/21/numbers-associated-with-trumps-incompetence-are-kept-secret/

Continue Reading

Renewable Energy

You’re Being Asked to Believe the Unbelievable

Published

on

American voters are being told that progressives hate America.

This type of crap may have some level of acceptance among our least intelligent voters, but fortunately, they’re nowhere near the majority.

You’re Being Asked to Believe the Unbelievable

Continue Reading

Renewable Energy

Omterra Rebrand, Goldwind Warns on Turbine Size

Published

on

Weather Guard Lightning Tech

Omterra Rebrand, Goldwind Warns on Turbine Size

Siemens Gamesa rebrands as Omterra, Goldwind questions ever-bigger turbines, and MIT revisits the century-old Betz limit.

Sign up now for Uptime Tech News, our weekly newsletter on all things wind technology. This episode is sponsored by Weather Guard Lightning Tech. Learn more about Weather Guard’s StrikeTape Wind Turbine LPS retrofit. Follow the show on YouTubeLinkedin and visit Weather Guard on the web. And subscribe to Rosemary’s “Engineering with Rosie” YouTube channel here. Have a question we can answer on the show? Email us!

The Uptime Wind Energy podcast, brought to you by StrikeTape. Protecting thousands of wind turbines from lightning damage worldwide. Visit striketape.com. And now your hosts

Allen Hall: Welcome to the Uptime Wind Energy Podcast. I’m your host, Allen Hall, and I’m here with Rosemary Barnes, who is recovering from a very serious illness, Matthew Stead, who has been healthy pretty much all the Australian winter, and Yolanda Padron in sunny, hot Austin, Texas. Welcome, Rosemary

Rosemary Barnes: Thank you. I am recovering from man flu, and I say man flu because it’s just a cold, but I’m complaining a lot about it.

Allen Hall: there’s gonna be a new name for Siemens Gamesa. So it was Siemens and then Gamesa’s a separate company. They merged. Siemens Energy, uh, broke off from Siemens AG. So [00:01:00] that’s a very well-known name, Siemens. It’s– Everybody knows Siemens at this point around the world.

And the, the one family had, as a company, had s- label on everything, right? So it’s, uh, Werner von Siemens started it 150 years ago. It’s been a long time since Siemens was started, but it’s everywhere. It’s on turbines, transformers, and power plants around the world, and now they’re changing their name, right?

So when Siemens Energy broke off from Siemens AG, they, they had a limited time they could use that name, so they have rebranding themselves or are about to rebrand themselves, and I wanna pronounce this right, Omterra. O-M-T-E-R-R-A. Now, we did a little research on this, and I think it’s Latin for all of the world.

It’s kind of a conjoined, uh, set of words, Latin words, kind of a, a schmear in a sense. So, uh, so the company that, you [00:02:00] know, that spun off in w- roughly 2020, if I remember this right, Matthew, does that sound right? It was roughly 2020 when Siemens Energy was established on its own. Uh, they’re gonna be changing their name to Omterra.

So instead of seeing, seeing Siemens Gamesa publications or Siemens Gamesa wind turbines, I guess they’re gonna have this new name, Omterra. What do we all think?

Matthew Stead: I think it’s great. I think, and if you go back to, you know, GE Vernova, um, I, I thought Vernova was a bit weird for a while, but now it just rolls off the tongue and easy. It just makes so much sense. Um, so I’m, I’m, I’m for it. I, I like it. I’ve already… You know, can already say it. It took a lot longer to say Vernova than it’s taking to say

Terra.

Rosemary Barnes: I think that it– But it’s not Vernova, it’s GE Vernova, right? So everyone knows what it is. Whereas my understanding is it’s not Siemens Omtera, it’s just Omtera, which makes it sound like a new budget kind of [00:03:00] brandless, history-less, uh, company. So that’s… Yeah, I’m no

branding expert, but I think that, uh, like they, they must have not been able to use the word Siemens at all, um, because otherwise you surely would, because it has a very…

Outside of, you know, their blade issues and bearing issues of a couple of years ago, they do have a, like a solid engineering reputation across many fields, so you wouldn’t probably intentionally divorce yourself entirely from that. So, um, yeah, I, I think it will take some getting used to for me

Matthew Stead: but everyone remembers. I mean, it’s not like– The people in the wind industry know their heritage, they know their history, so I don’t think it matters. I mean, you know, you know, they, they purchase the Senvion, you know, technologies or, you know, licenses in Europe. You know, y- y- you don’t forget these things, so I don’t think it matters.

I think it’s just a, it’s a color, it’s a, it’s a label

Yolanda Padron: I think it’ll be fine. I just think that there will be a little [00:04:00] bit of confusion down the line as with everything, right? Like I’ve, I’ve been on the side of conversations where I have to explain like Siemens versus like SGRE on paper and it’s like, oh, it’s– this is why th- there was that paper trail, uh, because people would think it was an absolutely different thing.

Um, so I, I can totally see those conversations coming, coming to play in the future where someone thinks that Ontier is a completely different entity that maybe they changed OEMs or something, um, for a site. But nothing a little history lesson won’t fix, I guess.

Matthew Stead: You just want people talking about you

Rosemary Barnes: Name change every year

Allen Hall: Change your name every year. Well, that’s, that’s one way to approach it. I w- always wonder what the boardroom looks like and sounds like when this discussion is going on, because Siemens, Siemens Energy is a big company, and there had to be outsourcing of this to probably several marketing firms, mostly [00:05:00] in Germany, I’m guessing.

And they came back with a bunch of pitches, and eventually they picked one. But boardrooms are probably not the place to pick a name. And I always think like, “Oh, you just had such a opportunity to do something really cool or really impressive.”

Allen Hall: Well, we’ll see how it goes with Omterra. The, it’s gonna be, I’m sure, a huge marketing effort, and you’ll probably see commercials for it during the Super Bowl.

Developers are [00:06:00] eyeing Britain’s next big renewables auction and have been waiting to learn the rules and most importantly, the price. Well, this week the UK government delivered both. It confirmed a package of changes to the CFD scheme ahead of allocation round eight, aimed at simplifying the process and keeping good projects from being tripped up by some paperwork.

So AR7 was super successful, and they’re hopefully gonna have a, a great allocation round eight. Uh, unchanged from last round, here are some pieces to it. AR7 brought in 15 gigawatts of, of new capacity, uh, well below the ceilings, and the government is betting that that’s stability from AR7’s gonna exist for AR8, so they’re keeping the pricing limits the same.

And let me give you some of the numbers here. So everything’s in 2024 prices, just so we have a baseline here. It, 113 pounds per megawatt hour [00:07:00] for fixed bottom offshore wind, 271 pounds for floating offshore wind. That’s, uh, pounds per megawatt. And then 92 pounds per megawatt for onshore wind, and s- 75 pounds per megawatt for solar. So 271 pounds per megawatt hour in 2044 dollars is, you know, you’re probably talking, what, 290 pounds per megawatt hour. That’s a really good strike price or ceiling to allow, uh, some more floating wind into the UK waters

Rosemary Barnes: Yeah. Well, the UK have this newly signed agreement with Japan, right, to, to progress development of that technology. I feel like I, I haven’t looked up any numbers to back this up, but I feel like the gap between fixed bottom and floating is narrowing. It’s barely more than double now, which, um, yeah, I think is not that bad considering how little development there has been for floating offshore wind compared to fixed bottom.

So [00:08:00] yeah, I think that it is an interesting technology to develop. I, I know with the, um, auction rounds and ’cause it’s a government thing, it’s easy to think, “Oh, why are you spending any money on anything other than the cheapest one?” Because y- you know, like, it, it feels weird that the government would play, you know, when they’re purchasing power for their grid, that they would do any more than trying to just get, you know, bulk power at the cheapest price possible whilst ensuring, you know, reliability.

Um, but in the previous or the previous, the one– last one or the one before that, they had quite a few tidal projects announced that certainly, you know, an expensive and not mature technology. But I think that you can’t say the same thing about floating offshore wind. I think that it is on a, like a good, a good development trajectory, and there are certainly places on Earth where floating offshore is one of the most appealing technologies.

You know, if you think of through to 2030s, 2040s, there’s plenty of places where, um, you know, slightly higher [00:09:00] price paid for floating offshore wind will still be worth it because they have so few other options available. So it makes sense as an industry to in- invest in capabilities there.

Matthew Stead: think it’s a really interesting method. It seems to be really successful, the contract for di-difference approach. So, um, I’m, I’m surprised that it’s not adopted more widely, um, in other locations,

Rosemary Barnes: it is around a bit.

I would like to see it, like, in, in Australia, we are, we are developing some new wind projects, but not as fast as we need to, to, you know, hit our upcoming targets. And I think, like, while the government is doing some things to help move or help incentivize developers, it’s not working that well, and maybe CFD would be a, you know, a bit of a better way to, like, just actually guarantee that these projects are gonna go ahead.

Allen Hall: Australia has a shipping problem. there’s been a concern at state-owned transport hubs are becoming less supportive of [00:10:00] wind energy projects with ACEN Renewables saying that they will now have to truck a large transformer from a wind project or for a wind project in northern New South Wales from the Port of Adelaide.

That’s not necessarily close. And h- they also said that the Port of Brisbane has refused to accept passage of some big transformers for a solar farm. also there’s some, uh, something about blades not being able to be accepted in certain ports. Like some of the, uh, Australian state-managed or state-owned ports are not accepting renewables.

Rosemary Barnes: I think

also that blades in Queensland can only be transported to site like one per day with a full police escort or something. It’s wild to

me ’cause, you know, like I lived in, in Denmark for so long and there were blades going up and down just the normal highway every single day, multiple like, uh, and three– they would go in sets of threes for obvious reasons.

Um, yeah, but the, the, the [00:11:00] Queensland government changed like a, a year ago or, or so, and it changed to a very anti-renewables government and they just threw all of the state’s renewable plans in the bin,

Allen Hall: such a recent change that when they, at least the news articles I’ve seen about it, I’ve only seen a handful, that they have, um, like last year some big transformers, like really difficult to move items have come through those ports and they’re just not letting them through now. How does that work?

If you have a, a, a legal right to build a wind farm or a solar farm or, or substation or whatever’s going on there, how do they reconcile not allowing those components to come through a port? In what world does that make sense?

Matthew Stead: I mean, most of the ports are– yeah, most of the ports are privatized, so it’s up to the individual commercial entity that’s running the port, I would, I would imagine. So it’s beyond the control of the government, would be my first guess.

Yolanda Padron: it seems like it’s an, a federal sort of thing that would give permits.

Matthew Stead: No, I mean, I’ve done a bit of work in the Port of Melbourne and, [00:12:00] um, it’s facilitated by the government, uh, state government, not federal, and but the ports are largely privatized.

Rosemary Barnes: I just pulled up an article and it says that it’s state-owned transport hubs are becoming

less supportive of wind energy projects. Um, yeah, and that’s the reason for why they’ll have to get that transformer in northern New South Wales, so very close to Queensland. They have to go from Adelaide, where you live, Matt, all the way through South Australia, maybe Victoria, New South Wales, and then, yeah, up to nearly the border.

Allen Hall: Is that just a temporary blip that the next election cycle it’ll revert back or is this something that’s more long term?

Rosemary Barnes: uh, it’s not obvious that it’s gonna flip straight back, that’s for sure

Allen Hall: [00:13:00] for years, the race in wind has run mostly in one direction: bigger and bigger blades, bigger towers, bigger machines.

And now a chief engineer f- at one of China’s largest turbine makers says it’s time to pump the brakes. Bo Juul Petersen, uh, Goldwind’s chief engineer in Denmark, argues that scaling turbines up no longer makes economic sense. So it’s not an engineering question, it’s an economic question. His reasoning rests on a simple rule of geometry, the square cube r- law, which says that as a turbine grows, its materials and costs climb faster than the rotor area that earns the revenue.

Past a certain point, he says, bigger simply costs more than it makes. Have we crossed that threshold yet? Is 20 megawatts that, [00:14:00] uh, pivot point where it doesn’t make any more sense to make a larger turbine?

Matthew Stead: didn’t we have problems when we went from three to six?

Allen Hall: One to two.

Matthew Stead: I, I, I think, uh, I think it’s good that someone’s actually coming out and saying this

Yolanda Padron: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Rosie’s on the podcast.

Rosemary Barnes: yeah, ex-excuse me, this is one of my topics of obsession that I constantly carry on about. I made a whole, a whole video about it with, um, equations to back up my opinions about scaling, um, and a very nifty tug of war metaphor between economic factors that favor big wind turbines and economic fav- factors that favor small ones.

And I think that we’re always a little bit ahead of, of what the right, the right balance is between those. So, you know, the benefits from having bigger turbines are that, um, you have fewer electrical connections, for offshore especially, that means less subsea cables and, um, yeah, just like much faster Faster construction of all that, you [00:15:00] know, less, uh, substructures and less, less of everything to install, less of everything to maintain as well.

You know, it doesn’t take so much longer to get up and do your annual maintenance checks of a big turbine compared to a small one. Like, it takes longer, but not, not that much longer. Um, but then all of the structural factors favor smaller turbines over bigger ones. blades especially, as they get longer, you get so many more problems in O&M, but they don’t show up on the developer’s spreadsheet, you know. The spreadsheet that you’re using to decide, um, your f- your final investment decision, it, it doesn’t, it doesn’t know that you’re gonna have a whole bunch of blade issues.

It doesn’t wanna know and so I think that that’s one factor that has pushed us past the economic point of where wind turbine size should be. And I think the other thing is prestige. I know that when I worked at LM, you know, we had the longest blade in the world.

It was 88 meters, was our first, um, world record that we set while I was working there. They’d had many before that. We had– They [00:16:00] had a, like, one-to-one scale printout of it that they took to WindEurope or WindHamburg, um, that everyone stood in front of, and then they lost it to somebody, and then they got it back again with the blade for the Halieade-X.

And we all know how well that went to, you know, have the world’s longest blade. Y- you know, it wasn’t so easy to make it, turned out. It’s very easy to announce and not so easy to make, um, with reliable quality. And now we’ve got all these Chinese companies, especially MingYang, is constantly announcing the world’s biggest something.

Um, don’t sell so many of them, but it’s not the point, isn’t to sell them, it’s to have the prestige of making the world’s biggest something.

Allen Hall: Yeah, what would be the technology breakthrough that would allow it to be more stable at a 20 or 25 megawatt? Because right now I’m, I’m seeing 1% improvement here and there, not 5%, 10%.

Rosemary Barnes: Yeah, I mean, 1% improvement will eventually add up to what, what you need. Maybe it’s in

20 years’ time, not 10 years’ time. But y- you know, like you can imagine anything. maybe [00:17:00] they start somehow, like aero and automotive manufacturing technologies get cheap enough that we can start making wind turbine blades with all prepregs instead of y- you know, um, you know, dry fabric and infusion.

For example, maybe 3D printing gets cheap enough that you can make your whole, whole blade from an additive process. Like a- anything like that. But it can also be other things like maybe the cost of subsea cables in- increases like a whole lot, and then if, you know, like things on one side getting more expensive can make it more worthwhile to save hard problems somewhere else. So that’s why I say it’s like a, it’s a, a ve- it’s a multivariable optimization problem that changes every time you have a…

Like for every project to project from year to year, it’s always gonna be slightly different. So I don’t think it’s wise to definitively say 20 megawatts is the threshold that we should never cross. Like I, I don’t agree with that.

Allen Hall: It’s one of those arguments, I think, about [00:18:00] any sort of technology about where the endpoint is. There’s too many variables to predict it. I always point to aviation in which older airplanes will hang around and hang around and hang around until the fuel price goes up enough where it doesn’t make sense to operate them.

So they will fly an airplane un-until they can no longer structurally do it. But if the price of oil shoots up and the price of aviation fuel bumps up, those airplanes get parked, and then they’re buying the new airplane with a more efficient engine. It’s a similar thing, I think. There’s just– You can’t tell where the technology’s gonna go or what the economic impacts of any part of that business will force you to do something different.

So it’s gonna be higher than 20 megawatts, guarantee you that.

Yolanda Padron: Well, it’s one of those things too, right? Where if we’re repeating the, the same blade type and we’re getting smarter about operating that same blade type, then the economic cost goes down, [00:19:00] right? Like, eventually. ‘Cause then you’re not just experimenting on every new thing or having to take all of the, the funding into tr- specializing techs or getting very specialized techs onto your site and finding a new– kind of the wheel every so often. [00:20:00] So speaking of larger wind turbines, evidently we’ve been doing this all wrong, that we’ve had the calculations for the, uh, Betz limit has been off, and, uh, a group of MIT engineers, I guess, uh, have, have made a breakthrough.

Allen Hall: So basically every wind turbine that is spinning today is based on some fundamentals, uh, math, empirical data in, in some level, but on formulas that have led us to design the wind turbines and that core formula called the momentum theory. And if you hear blade designers who hang around blade designers, which I don’t necessarily recommend, but if you do hang around blade designers, they, they’ll say the momentum theory, momentum theory, like, “Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I got it.”

It, it, the– MIT is saying it breaks down exactly at the operating point where modern turbines try to live. Um, so for a century the fix [00:21:00] was a patchwork of corrections and useful, but with no real theory behind them. Now, a team at MIT said it has rebuilt the math from first principles, creating what they call a unified momentum model. It even nudges at the famous Betz limit, the century-old ceiling on how much energy a rotor can capture, and it bumps it up by a few percentage points, and that would be the first uptick to the Betz limit in over 100 years. All right, Rosemary, as our official Betz limit expert, does this make any sense?

Have the MIT folk something new?

Rosemary Barnes: a wind turbine blade, its aerodynamics are just the same aerodynamics as what keeps an airplane in the sky, right? It’s, it’s all the… It’s just an airfoil. It’s just facing a wind speed, um, you know, a local wind speed. It’s complicated by the fact that [00:22:00] a wind turbine blade is also rotating, so the wind speed is different along the whole span, and that’s, uh– and so is the flow angle, and that’s why blades are twisted and tapered.

Um, but you know, essentially when you wanna figure out how much energy, uh, a wind turbine is gonna generate or you wanna design the blade so that it optimizes that amount, you’re just slicing it up into a whole bunch of little bits of 2D flow, exactly the same as an, an airplane. So if it doesn’t work for wind turbines, then it shouldn’t work for airplanes either.

So that’s one fundamental thing. And also at Betz limit, it’s not like it’s not driving design. It’s more like if you, if your design exceeds the Betz limit for a, um, a horizontal axis wind turbine, then you– it’s like a sanity check that you’ve done something wrong. Uh, that’s, that’s what I would say you would mostly use it for.

Um, but what I don’t understand, and maybe Alan, presumably you did read the, read the research or at least the press [00:23:00] release. Are they arguing that y- um, like the tips of a wind turbine blade are rotating, are moving fast enough that it’s approaching transonic flow? ‘

Allen Hall: Yeah, it’s a rental number thing.

Rosemary Barnes: there’s different types of aerodynamic equations depending on how fast the, airfoil’s moving.

And my understanding is transonic is like 0.8 Mach, um, 0.8, which is 274 meters a second, which is more than double what, um, the fastest tip speeds are currently. So I would think that you’re not quite approaching that yet. They’re– It’s not like a cutoff that, you know, all of a sudden at that exact, exact speed the air behaves totally differently.

But, um, y- yeah, like it seems far enough away that it’s not that relevant. But is that what they’re getting

at or, or is it something different?

Allen Hall: I like doing sanity checks when I read things from MIT. So what blade [00:24:00] manufacturers and/or wind turbine OEM has designed a set of blades and go, “Oh my gosh, we’re getting more energy than what we calculated,” and not thought to themselves, “Huh, maybe we should look into that”? It’s, it’s, it’s hilarious almost that all the engineers working in wind for 100 years wouldn’t have stumbled across this, where the turbine produces more power than the Betz limit would say it would.

Y-

Rosemary Barnes: yeah, as many people have commented on, you know, any one of my YouTube videos about wind turbine aerodynamics, if they would just put more blades in there, then, you know, less wind would just fly through without ever being, um, y- without ever hitting a blade.

So, you know, like obviously wind turbine, uh, blade aerodynamics people are stupid because if they weren’t, then they would see that you just put more blades in and you get more, twice as many blades, twice as much energy and w- What about three times as many blades? Three times as much energy.

And I [00:25:00] didn’t even go to MIT and that’s just, you know, like just

brilliant

Allen Hall: Obvious

Rosemary Barnes: off the top of my head here.

Allen Hall: it’s sort of ludicrous, honestly, and I see these things in wind occasionally. I see it more often in other areas, particularly aerospace, where, where you just have to go, “What are we spending time on?

Really? We’re working on this? On a fraction of a percentage point that we may have a slight error in?” Like, it does not matter. What are you gonna do with that?

Rosemary Barnes: there’s two issues. One is that the person writing up the press release is not the person that did the research, and they will always blow it up to be much more groundbreaking than the engineers who actually worked on it probably think it is.

So, the, like, I think you have to, like, reserve your criticism of the work and try and criticize the press release. And then the second error that I commonly see is that people don’t have an un- good understanding of a status quo. So they think that they have smashed the status quo, but really it’s more to do with them not understanding the status quo than it is through [00:26:00] some legitimate, like, massive im- improvement.

So it could well be that this is all very good and correct work, just with limited practical implication. That would be my most expected, um, from this.

Allen Hall: Rosemary, how many times a month do you get queries about wind turbine improvements that are just physically impossible?

Rosemary Barnes: Oh, I mean, if I read all of the comments on my YouTube channel, then probably quite, quite frequently. But, um, yeah, the most common one is just people thinking you can just add more blades and get a proportional increase in, um, in energy, you won’t get more power from adding more blades if that’s the only thing that you do, because in a well-designed wind turbine, which modern ones are, every, e- every air molecule that goes through the rotor disc is gonna interact with the, um, with, with a blade.

That’s how it’s, it’s designed. The blades are moving really fast, and so every molecule doesn’t get hit, but, you know, every, every molecule is affected and has some energy extracted from it. Um, then the other thing is people [00:27:00]who think if you reduce drag, like if you can come up with a lower drag airfoil or a higher lift airfoil, then you think, they think that that relates to more energy proportionally.

So they’re like, “Oh, this airfoil has twice as much lift, so it’s gonna be twice as much power.” It’s like, actually, you know, wind turbine designers are aware of the full range of, you know, airfoils that are available, including high lift ones, and they’re not using it because, you know, the same reason the airplane wings aren’t just, you know, like the highest, highest lift airfoil.

Y- you know, it’s more of a lift to drag ratio type thing, and that’s true for wind turbine blades as well, but also there’s structural considerations probably more so in a wind turbine blade than there are in, um, in airplane wings. So, you know, there’s some sacrifices made for that. Um, yeah, but those are the two, two main families of, of mistakes that I’d say people make.

Allen Hall: So

Rosemary Barnes: Matt

Allen Hall: up to his hand up for

to MIT media representatives

Matthew Stead: uh,

I had a couple of sort of quick and simple points. The first of all, uh, I’m actually a graduate of [00:28:00] MIT. I’ve graduated from, uh, from a course at MIT. Um, so that’s the first thing. Um, not in engineering. Um, the next one is like, so what? I mean, we can’t even reliably measure, um, you know, AEP the other one is all models are wrong.

Yolanda Padron: But not just wind

Matthew Stead: the world is not perfect. All models are wrong, so trying to improve something that’s wrong, you know, might help a little bit, but does it really matter?

Rosemary Barnes: But it is also the job of academics to improve these models. So there’s nothing wrong with MIT spending a lot of energy to, um, you know, improve on an incorrect model with another incorrect model. Uh, if it’s more useful, that’s great, and even if it’s not, like isn’t that the job of

Matthew Stead: yeah.

Matthew Stead: you should add to where it has the most impact on humanity. You should actually put the effort into areas that have a greater impact on pushing the boundary. You know, pushing small boundaries does not help the world

Allen Hall: Matthew is an MIT graduate, [00:29:00] the one thing that Matthew brings to the table is real-world experience. And that if you shelter yourself inside a laboratory at MIT, and I understand why you would do that, because I’m sure it’s a very pleasant place to work, and there’s a lot of benefits to that.

However, the way that MIT used to work back in the day, and not everything was roses then, but oh, okay, y- that people had industry experience. They had a knowledge of what was going on on the ground, and they were engineers, and they realized that formulas and reality don’t always align. And maybe we lost that somewhere in the ’80s and, or ’90s, but it does continue to be a problem, where back to Matthew’s point, if you’re going to use that amount of brain energy, put it to something that can help the world.

This isn’t necessarily helping the world That wraps up another episode of the Uptime: Wind Energy podcast. If today’s discussion sparked any questions or ideas, and I’m sure that it will, we’d love to hear from [00:30:00] you. Reach out to us on LinkedIn, and don’t forget to subscribe so you never miss an episode.

So for Yolonda, Rosemary, and Matthew, I’m Allen Hall, and we’ll see you here next week on the Uptime: Wind Energy podcast.

Omterra Rebrand, Goldwind Warns on Turbine Size

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com