From a reader:  Okay… confession: I only physically read about a quarter of it.

I’ll make an even greater confession: I read “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead” back-to-back when I was a teenager, and they meant a great deal to me at the time.

It was a couple of decades later that I realized that “the virtue of selfishness,” as Rand described her philosophy, is a horrible basis on which to build a society. Fortunately, there isn’t a nation on Earth where everything is privatized: roads, tunnels, bridges, airports, law enforcement, criminal justice, disaster relief, libraries, national defense, bank deposit insurance, emergency healthcare, food safety, etc.

Moreover, hoping that rich and selfish people will restrain themselves from ruining the environment is a joke.

Ayn Rand and the Virtue of Selfishness

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act (AFIDA) is critical legislation to protect U.S. national security. Given the ever-evolving threat environment, we support the effort to update and improve AFIDA to better protect the security of American agricultural land. 

USDA’s current proposed rule significantly expands AFIDA in ways that could ultimately create more burdens for energy security than protections for national security.

We submitted a comment letter proposing multiple adjustments to the proposed rule that could prevent potential slowdowns in the deployment of solar power and the building of pipelines. We also propose adjustments that prioritize submissions from foreign adversaries and Foreign Adversary Controlled Entities, giving appropriate emphasis to valid national security risks without unduly sacrificing the timeliness and effectiveness of the data collection AFIDA mandates. 

We look forward to working with the USDA and our partners across the energy sector on an appropriate path forward to address national security concerns presented by foreign ownership of American agricultural land while considering the need for the development of affordable, reliable, and secure energy infrastructure.

###

About ACORE
ACORE is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization that operates at the intersection of affordability, reliability, and clean energy deployment. Our work is focused on stabilizing energy prices, strengthening the electric grid, and driving investment in cost-effective technologies to ensure that clean energy delivers for people, businesses, and the U.S. economy.

ACORE’s membership includes clean energy investors, developers, energy buyers, power generators, manufacturers, and energy providers. In 2024, nearly 80% of the booming utility-scale domestic clean energy growth was financed, developed, owned, equipped, or contracted by ACORE members. For more information, visit www.acore.org. 

Media Contacts:

Chris Higginbotham 
VP, Communications
higginbotham@acore.org  

The post Statement on USDA Proposed Updates to the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act from ACORE President and CEO Ray Long  appeared first on ACORE.

https://acore.org/news/statement-on-usda-proposed-updates-to-the-agricultural-foreign-investment-disclosure-act-from-acore-president-and-ceo-ray-long/

Weather Guard Lightning Tech

ORE Catapult Blade Survey, Siemens Gamesa Turns a Profit

ORE Catapult wants industry blade failure data, Siemens Gamesa posts its first profit since 2022, and Vattenfall sweeps Denmark’s offshore auction. Fill out the ORE Catapult survey!

The Uptime Wind Energy Podcast is brought to you by Weather Guard Lightning Tech, creators of the StrikeTape Ultra LPS retrofit. Subscribe to Uptime’s Substack newsletter. And check out Rosemary’s “Engineering with Rosie” Youtube channel. Have a question we can answer on the show? Email us!

Allen Hall: Welcome to the Uptime Wind Energy podcast. I’m your host, Allen Hall, and I’m here with Rosemary Barnes, Matthew Sted, and Yolanda Padron. And it has been a real interesting week out in the renewable land, uh, if you’ve been watching some of the news, and we’re gonna talk about a number of those stories this week.

But I wanna lead off with what ORE Catapult is doing over in the UK. So if, if you haven’t followed ORE Catapult, they are a, a research investigative arm and a huge proponent of wind, offshore wind in the United Kingdom, and they’ve done a, a tre- really tremendous amount of work in some of the, uh, particular problems that exist in wind trying to help [00:01:00] solve them.

They have a survey that’s out, and if you haven’t seen it, you can just Google ORE Catapult and put in survey, and you’ll come to either an article or get to their site. And Rosemary and Yolanda, there’s a couple of particular items that they’re asking questions about. Uh, a lot of it is asking specific questions about torsional stability of blades.

Have you seen more difficulty with torsion? Is… Do we need a torsion test? I think that was one of the questions. Uh, also looking at ranking of the different issues that happen with blades in particular. That’s what I noticed. Uh, you know, where’s lightning? Where’s blade connections? Where’s structural issues?

Where do you rank all those different things? And I, I have not seen a survey like this in quite a while. Is this something that we need to do more of? I know [00:02:00] ORE Catapult will get a huge amount of feedback, at least I hope, over in the UK and, and around Europe. I don’t think many Americans are gonna be contributing to that too much since you don’t have a lot of offshore wind.

But is this going in the right direction? Do we need more of these industry surveys about structural blade issues?

Yolanda Padron: Yeah, I think these surveys are a really good idea. Uh, the only thing that scares me from the owner side is that sometimes there’s a little bit of, uh- Teams don’t really love the idea of sharing information that might seem like it’s, um, like intellectual property to their internal teams.

Even if as an engineer, of course, you love the idea of sharing and finding out like, um, what everybody else is, is experiencing on their site. Um, and so I really hope that the teams can really look, like their internal teams can really look past that because this would be a really great tool [00:03:00] for everybody to use.

I know I looked at the survey myself and some of the questions kind of gave people the, the opportunity to kind of anonymize their data and then just kind of share it and have it. It seemed like it, it would probably be a platform that everybody could look at or everybody that, that shared could look at.

And I think that it could be really, really good for operators to be able to know kind of if what they’re seeing on site is normal and just to be able to see what they’re signing up for when there’s a new site coming in. Or if it’s a site that’s been operational for a while, you can see what’s, hopefully, what’s happening to a quite older site than yours.

So just to, to be able to be a bit more prepared, um, since a lot of these sites are from different own- owners. But I think it’s a really good idea.

Allen Hall: The survey asked questions about leading edge erosion, torsional loads, root joint integrity, lightning damage, manufacturing defects, which is a big [00:04:00] issue right now, extreme loading events, which also, uh, is, uh, coming about more often, uh, repair performance, and end of life fatigue.

So there’s a, a series of questions about that and when do you experience these items in the lifetime of a blade. Is it more towards the beginning of the operation or more towards the end? That is important to know ’cause it, how you go about managing blades depends on that. The torsional questions were more specific.

Uh, in your experience, how well understood are the effects on blade longevity of torsional loads compared to bending loads? And I think that relates back to some of the, uh, issues that have been seen on some offshore blades where there’s no existing test for torsion because it’s so hard to do. Whereas bending loads, we pretty well understand that and can do lifetime testing essentially for, for bending loads.

So the torsional one I think is gonna raise a lot of question marks to hopefully with people, and we can come up [00:05:00] with a, a better approach to that.

Yolanda Padron: Hopefully, yeah. I think this is, I mean, this is just a really good idea to if, if everybody could partake. Um, I would really love to see something similar if people could in, in onshore.

And so just something that’s, that’s shared a, uh, a little bit more widely I think would be really, really great. Uh, the only thing that might stre- or not stress me out, but- you know, I think people need to be careful about is just making sure that you’re not, um, that you actually use your data and not just kind of like, “Oh, I know that I remember this terrible lightning damage that I got in this really, really bad area, so I’m gonna mark as though most of my lightning damage happens in that bad area.”

So just, just make sure you don’t use confirmation bias for, for that, but

Matthew Stead: I can also add to it as well ’cause, um, we’ve done a fair bit of work with all Catapult over the years, um, particularly through the new IEC standard for blade O&M. Um, and, uh, [00:06:00] definitely through the new blade O&M standard, the topic of blade twist has come up multiple times.

Um- And also adding to that, you know, our organization has done twist on, twist measurements on 100 meter blades, and the twist that we measured was more than the OEM expected. Um, so I think this is a bit of a sleeper topic, um, and I think OR Catapult is doing the right thing by gathering more information.

Allen Hall: There is a l- little database that’s gonna be put together, at least looking at the questions. Question 12, and everybody hopefully will go in and, and participate in the survey, but it says, “Would you be interested in sharing redacted failure data into a industry-wide database to help inform research agenda for blade development and O&M tools and solutions?”

That is a great idea. Having a database so we understand the scale of problems and can put some numbers [00:07:00] to them, and then we can do some more research in those areas, and focus research where we’re actually gonna spend money in the right places, which has been my fight for the last five, six years, where we spend a lot of money, but not necessarily where we need to.

That’s a great question, and hopefully OR Catapult does p- put together a database.

Rosemary Barnes: Companies really, really, really struggle to provide access to their data. Like, um, it, y- yeah, it, it’s, it’s very hard to get it beyond just using for their own specific project. I’ll be, I’ll be so happy if this database gets up and becomes publicly available so that every- everybody can use it to create the solutions that the industry needs.

But I know how hard a challenge it is, so I’m wishing them heaps of, heaps of luck to get it to work.

Matthew Stead: And can I also add that, um, OR Catapult also did a wonderful presentation at Blades Europe, where they talked about life extension. They talked about the actual loading on the blades, um, influencing the fatigue life.

And so I think, you know, that excellent [00:08:00] database hopefully, as we talked about, gets fed into some of their work about life extension.

Allen Hall: Well, OR Catapult is trying to get ahead of blade failures before they cost money. Uh, our next company knows exactly what that costs. Siemens Gamesa is still climbing out of a serial defect problem, and it posted its first profit in four years.

So we’ll be back to talk about that in a moment.

Speaker: Are you overspending on lightning repairs? Most operators are, because solving lightning damage is complicated. Weather Guard Lightning Tech helps operators reduce lightning damage. Our innovative StrikeTape lightning diverter protects over 20,000 blades worldwide.

Now, StrikeTape Ultra installs faster than ever. StrikeTape Ultra cures uptower in just 15 minutes, even in cold weather. Visit weatherguardwind.com to schedule a call.

Allen Hall: Siemens Gamesa has finally turned a [00:09:00] profit, its first time since 2022. Uh, now comes the hard part. Order intake in the third quarter fell 77% from 4.89 billion euros a year ago to 1.05 billion Chief Executive Christian Bruch, uh, says a lot of the offshore projects that were originally planned are slipping, and as we’ve seen in the news, and that developers are not willing to make final investment decisions right now.

Uh, in Germany, developers are lobbying to hand 16 gigawatts of offshore sites back to the states, and, and Bruch says that the, the capacity is, is not going to be built. Onshore, uh, the relaunched 5.X platform is ramping up slowly after the serial defect shutdown, with approvals still holding some orders back.

So Siemens Gamesa is going to make a push, or [00:10:00] Omtera I guess it is called now, w- is going to make a push, uh, into the 5.X machine and continue on on the offshore side. But boy, some of these, uh, auctions and, uh, bidding processes are not great for Siemens at the moment.

Matthew Stead: I’ve got a question. Did, um, did Siemens actually stop selling for a while as well?

Is that part of their order intake loss?

Allen Hall: Some of the machines, I believe, the 4.X and the 5.X, when they had the serial defect issues, uh, they put a hold on them for a little while and, and did a complete redesign, I believe, on the blades. But other turbines I thought were still being offered for sale, and I thought I saw s- some installs in the United States going on, more on the two megawatt, three megawatt machines, uh, but n- not the bigger ones.

And, and offshore too, like it sound- does sound like the large offshore wind project in the United States, which is the coastal Virginia offshore wind project, uh, off the, you know, a couple of miles off the coast of Virginia, is [00:11:00]going a little bit slower than they thought. Uh, so maybe there’s a, a little bit to the 14.

It’s, that’s a Siemens Gamesa 14-236 direct drive machine that’s going in there. So there, there’s some still learning curves going on from what I can see, but it does seem like it’s, uh, it’s, you know, formerly Siemens Energy, there’s a huge amount of money to be had in this corporation. So if the wind division is not doing all that great, it, it’s kind of like GE Vernova.

There, there’s other ways to make money.

Matthew Stead: There’s also, I mean, I’m just wondering if there’s a bit of a blip. It’s just a short-term correction in terms of the order intake, and, you know, once they get back on track, uh, it’ll, it’ll revert again. Uh, that’s what I hope for, hope for.

Allen Hall: We’re gonna move on to Vattenfall.

Uh, there was a Danish offshore auction, and Vattenfall won both of them. And Ørsted did bid and didn’t win, and no one seems to care too much that Ørsted didn’t win. Uh, and Vattenfall, it’s, it’s a huge deal for [00:12:00] Vattenfall. So- Orsted not winning in their own backyard does seem like a problem politically

Rosemary Barnes: If Denmark wanted to have, you know, local companies winning these auctions, then they could’ve, they could’ve, uh, you know, made it for l- local companies only or tilted the playing field in their favor.

Um, so yeah, uh, I don’t know, maybe that’s the outcome that they want. If they want… It’s always like a, a tension, right? If you, you want cheap- the cheapest prices on one hand, you want local content on the other, and if you, you know, anything you do to one of those two sides affects the other. So yeah, like, in general, the more you encourage local content, then the more restrictions you place on companies to choose a cheaper supplier in every case.

Uh, Denmark is at least well-placed to have good world-class suppliers in, you know, most, most categories of the things that you need in an offshore wind [00:13:00] farm. But yeah, I mean, you see it all over the world. Uh, you know, Australia periodically tries to, uh, you know, get more local content, but it’s very, it’s very hard for us ’cause we don’t have a whole thriving ecosystem.

And so it’s like you’ve gotta pick out the one thing that you think that we could compete on and then subsidize that, and then it’s just, like, so… it’s such a weird distortion. And if companies didn’t already wanna choose that local supplier, it’s because it’s more expensive, so therefore you are necessarily adding cost.

Um, I think Taiwan d- uh, has h- experienced a lot of this with their offshore industry, right? Where they kind of s- they got really enthusiastic about local content, and everyone’s like, “Yeah, this is a great thing to do ’cause you can get local manufacturing, and you can develop a whole thriving industry But then when it comes down to it, you know, it’s not so great to have, like, whoever set up the, the system that you’ve gotta adhere to to get these projects in place, like, they’re not the experts in developing offshore [00:14:00] projects for a cheap price and on schedules, obviously.

Other- otherwise they’d be working in that, in that role. So you, uh, do end up making things really hard for the developers, and then you- they ended up with very expensive projects. And, um, because the local content, you know, like, they had what sounded, in theory at the start, like a good, um, like a good idea.

They start off with a low local content requirement and gradually ratcheted it up as the industry is supposed to mature. But what they saw was the prices just ratcheted up in parallel. Um, especially once the few things that can be competitively supplied, uh, locally, once you… That is not sufficient to y- y- you know, once the local content amount exceeds what you can achieve with those competitive industries, then yeah, you do start to see people having to spend a lot more and add a lot of project risk if you’re, y- you know, uh, going with brand new suppliers that have never, you know, never supplied a project like that before.

So I can kind of [00:15:00] understand why Denmark wouldn’t be so focused on, yeah, our local, our local company needs to win.

Matthew Stead: Yeah. Yeah, com- competition is a good thing, isn’t it? So yeah, you can’t have everyone winning all the time.

Rosemary Barnes: I think it’s such an interesting time, though, in the world where, and I’m changing my mind about this, like, yes, competition is a good thing, but if you only have competition, um, and don’t consider your country’s, you know, local competitiveness, then you end up not being able to make anything, especially when we’ve got, y- you know, in the world at the moment, there’s so much globalization, like, way more than ever before in the world’s history.

And, you know, there are countries or our country mostly, that has, you know, 50% of market share for certain things, and more for other things that people need. It’s like, so- They can obviously, just based on scale alone, can produce things at prices that no [00:16:00] one else can compete with. And then you add in that not every country is totally committed to 100% fair global playing field and, you know, there are subsidies involved and incentives and that sort of thing.

Like, you do just end up with every other country not thinking it’s economic to make anything at all. And then, yeah, I mean, everyone knows monopolies are bad, right? I don’t think that would be any different for supply chains. So I think, yeah, like we’re about to have a re-reckoning or are in the process of a re-reckoning about how much globalization is a good thing, how much free trade is a good thing, how much, you know, just letting the market take care of it is a good thing because nobody wants to end up in a situation where, you know, the whole world is dependent on one country to make absolutely everything.

Yolanda Padron: Yeah, but is it, isn’t it also kind of like a cultural thing here for Vattenfall, um, like for Dane- Denmark itself to try to be very [00:17:00]strict about the rules and if Ørsted didn’t win the bid, then they didn’t win the bid type of thing? Like, to not try to give them as much of a, of an advantage ’cause they’re still owned majorly by the Crown, right?

Allen Hall: It’s like 50% ownership by the state, right, Ørsted still.

Yolanda Padron: In general they, they have a lot of- very Danish rules of like against, you know, uh, in the US against like PACs and lobbying and stuff, and things that are very common here because it’s more culturally aligned with Denmark. Um, so I guess it, I mean, it does, it, it does make sense, right?

That they would try to separate that as much as possible to try to not have that conflict of interest.

Rosemary Barnes: I think Denmark, um, definitely wouldn’t consider themselves rule followers, ’cause if you compare them to their immediate neighbors like, um, Sweden and Germany, the Danes are like a lot more relaxed.

They have this saying in, [00:18:00] uh, Denmark that i- in, in Sweden, everything that isn’t forbidden is mandatory. That’s how they think of, of the Swedes.

Allen Hall: Wow. There’s a lot that’s not forbidden, Rosemary. You’re going into some murky waters there. Okay.

Rosemary Barnes: That’s their perception, and I think it is true relative to Sweden.

The Swede- Swedes are more rule followers. But as, um, someone that comes from a probably more relaxed country, again, yes, the Danes did really like following rules. Um, like a lot of unwritten rules as well. I remember one specific example I remember actually, uh, we had like a whole, uh, I did Danish language classes when I was there, and part of that was like a cultural education.

One of the classes was based around, uh, some of the unwritten rules in society, and one of them is it’s this date, and I don’t remember the date, but there is a certain date that if you have not trimmed your hedge by that date, that is just like y- you are not an upstanding member of society. Like, that is just like ab- absolutely not okay and like everybody that walks [00:19:00] past your house is like, “Oh my God, they haven’t trimmed their hedge yet,” and people will be talking about it and in the canteen at work.

So definitely they do like to follow the rules. But what I will say about Denmark also is that I think that they usually top the world’s list, or at least close to the top in terms of trust. Um, they trust people in general, but especially they trust government institutions. And I think that you can’t have trust in government institutions if they pick and choose, um, when they’re going to enforce the rules or not.

So I think that in that sense, yeah, of course, they’re not going to after the fact go, “Oh, this, the, oh, we had an auction, but the result wasn’t the way we liked it, so we’re gonna change it.” Like, that’s not a very trustworthy thing for a government to do. They do rely, obviously we’re a small country, they rely a lot on international trade, and so I think that they would see a big risk in, um, yeah, having their auction be anything but fully transparent and fair.

So yeah. Anyway, that’s my, my cultural interpretation based on having lived in Denmark for five years. Uh, [00:20:00] five years ago now. It’s been a while.

Allen Hall: That wraps up another episode of the Uptime Wind Energy podcast. If today’s discussion sparked any questions or ideas, we’d love to hear from you. Reach out to us on LinkedIn.

And if you found value in today’s conversation, please leave us a review. It really helps other wind energy professionals discover the show. And don’t forget to subscribe so you never miss an episode. And for Rosey, Yolanda, and Matthew, I’m Allen Hall, and we’ll see you here next week on the Uptime Wind Energy podcast.

ORE Catapult Blade Survey, Siemens Gamesa Turns a Profit