RI Wind Update

One could get a headache or dizzy trying to figure out what's going on with the governor's plan to get 15% of state electricity from renewable sources. The leading (only?) contender since the plan was announced has been offshore wind, for which a feasibility study was done to identify ideal locations for wind turbines.

Since that time, the state's Coastal Resource Management Commission has been unsuccessful in identifying preferred sites for further development. It has, however, begun the useful process of figuring out what the permitting and usage practices should be for state waters, and is working with the University of Rhode Island to come up with a set of rules that takes into account economic, recreational and other users of state waters. Recently, the CRMC asked for a one year moratorium on proposals for off shore wind development while the Special Area Management Plan is developed. Essentially, asking for what is likely to happen regardless of any proposals received while the SAMP is developed.

The dizzying part occurred on Thursday when the Governor Carcieri announced at a press conference that the state would begin soliciting proposals for off-shore wind development at the sites near Block Island. Apparently the governor really wants this project to at least be underway, if not generating power before he leaves office. Perhaps also, he is looking to have the pressure from industry of a standing proposal to get CRMC and URI to complete their plan on time. As I recall, URI has stated the plan could take up to three years to develop.

Another possibility is that he understands that the bidding and proposal process is likely to take over a year and doesn't need to wait for the coastal waters usage plan and permitting process to be developed in order to begin. Given the state cannot guarantee an electricity purchase contract or any funding for the project, project developers are going to need a bit of time to get their finanial plans together and memos of understanding/Power Purchase agreements from the grid. Given the lead time on this process this is unlikely to cause issues for CRMC/URI so long as they don't decide the proposed areas shouldn't used for wind turbines.

UPDATE: The Block Island Times has more on the cost, time line and goals of the SAMP project. And I sort of thought that a very close friend of mine was joking that being from Coventry, she was called a pig-farmer. And who knew a pig farm could be declared a SuperFund site. Learn something new everyday.

Read more at the Projo and Providence Business News

RI Congressman seems to get it.

Due to submiting my opinion to my representatives in congress, I received this response from the state representative to the US Congress. This marks the second time I've received a correspondence (last time from Senator Whitehouse).

And ding, he hits the 2 things that got stripped from the final bill - Renewable Portfolio Standards and the tax incentives for alternative energy (no mention of the tax subsidies for oil).

Dear Mr. Moritz:

Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts about energy and the environment. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to correspond with you.

In recent years, the U.S. has experienced a growing need for energy. Maintaining a reliable and affordable supply of power is essential to American businesses and consumers, especially as we face high energy costs. I have heard from many Rhode Islanders who are alarmed by rising energy costs, widespread evidence of climate change and our overdependence on foreign oil sources. In response, I am working with my colleagues on the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus and members of the House Leadership to enact a forward-thinking energy policy.

I am proud that Congress is taking bold steps toward energy independence. One of the main priorities of the Democratic Leadership has been establishing a new energy policy that guarantees access to affordable power, encourages conservation efforts and pursues increased use of environmentally responsible and renewable sources of energy. With my strong support, in August 2007, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3221, the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security and Consumer Protection Act, a comprehensive bill that includes programs to invest in groundbreaking technologies, create the necessary infrastructure for alternative fuels and ensure that our workforce is properly trained for the economy of the future. I have long advocated for exploring the possibilities offered by alternative fuels such as ethanol and hydrogen, investing not only in more research to lower production costs, but also in the infrastructure needed to make them more readily available to the consumer. For this reason, during consideration of H.R. 3221, I spoke out in support of an amendment offered by Congressman Tom Udall of New Mexico that would require electricity suppliers to derive 15% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. With my support, the Udall amendment passed 220-190.

As the House and the Senate negotiated a compromise between their respective versions of the energy legislation, I worked with my colleagues to advocate for inclusion of innovative programs and common-sense solutions to improve energy efficiency. On December 18, 2007, the House passed the final compromise bill, H.R. 6, the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act, by a vote of 314 - 100. On December 19, 2007, President Bush signed it into law. While I wish that the bill had retained the Udall Renewable Portfolio Standard and the tax incentives that the House passed, I will keep working to see those efforts become law. Regardless, I am proud that this legislation represents a landmark step forward in our nation's energy policy. I am particularly pleased that H.R. 6 includes the first significant increase in automobile fuel economy standards in more than three decades, an initiative for which I have long been a vocal advocate. This legislation finally makes it possible for us to harness the technology we have to reduce the amount of oil used for fuel by automobiles as much as 10% by 2020.

I am proud that the 110th Congress is taking bold steps toward energy independence, and I will continue to support energy policies that enhance national security, create American jobs and protect our environment. Thank you again for contacting me, and please do not hesitate to share your concerns on other pressing issues as the legislative session continues.

Sincerely,

Jim Langevin
Member of Congress
***If you would like to sign up for my e-newsletter, please click here.For more information about my work in Congress, please visit http://langevin.house.gov/.

Pre-emptive delays for RI offshore energy projects

The state of Rhode Island has newly signed an agreement with University of Rhode Island to research offshore energy projects according to the Providence Journal. One of the goals is to establish a recommendation for zoning of the state's waters that takes into account commercial, boating and environmental concerns. It is expected that the CRMC (state's agency for coastal and water conservation) will adopt these recommendations when completed in 18 months. This puts all current applications, such as the Allco wind farms, the states own wind development project and a wave generation project on hold until the zoning recommendations can be completed.

It is hoped that doing this research now will ease the permitting process later as the state will have an inventory of what water uses are already occurring and can use that to inform decisions about siting for energy generation.

Via National Wind Watch and Providence Journal.

A Cycling Trade Show in RI ?

Ripped from the December 6th RoadBikeRider (link may be to the wrong one, sorry) newsletter:

Interbike is considering an East
Coast version of the popular Outdoor Demo that's held in conjunction
with its annual cycling trade show in Las Vegas. A big difference in the
East may be a consumer day, allowing enthusiasts to see and ride new
2009 bikes and equipment. Interbike has set Oct. 16-18 for the East
event, subject to a survey sent to hundreds of eastern-U.S. bike shops
and manufacturers. The first two demo days, Thursday and Friday, would
be trade only; Saturday would be open to the public. The proposed venue
is Roger Williams Park near Providence, Rhode Island. According to
Interbike, "The East Coast Demo will have professional seminars,
technical clinics, networking opportunities -- a lot of the core things
we do at the [Las Vegas] show, but in a much more loose and inexpensive
way."

Who cares about if they allow us consumers in, to think that Rhode Island is a likely place for it to be held is heady enough.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Wind Farms in our Country

Courtesy of the anti- wind National Wind Watch's attention to wind news all over the world, I was directed towards a recent post to the Knowing Newport bulletin board by Mr. Anthony Spiratos. Given the nascent state of offshore wind development in Rhode Island and the US, I couldn't pass this one by without responding. He has since written and second and third installment in opposition to wind development near Newport.

On first read, it seems that while the author has spent some time coming up with a reasoned opinion, not in my backyard is the driving motivation for this article. On reread, I've changed my opinion and think that the author's core argument is that he doesn't want a wind farm near his home.

While it may be the case that the current proposals by the state and Allco to place wind farms offshore in Rhode Island are not economically or environmentally sound, much of what the author of these articles has said is not entirely correct, or out of date so far as I can tell. I do not make claim to be an expert, but just as this author has found sources to back up the position that wind is a bad idea, I've found contravening evidence and reports, or read what I presume to be the sources used and come to different conclusions.

Below I will examine the points in the first of his article. The format is that I will summarize in the first paragraph my understanding of his opposition to wind power, and then discuss or respond as appropriate. His second article expanding his opposing points will be responded to in a separate post. The original articles are here (Knowing Newport) and here (RI 12th) on the subject of offshore wind development in Rhode Island. There is also a third installment in Mr. Spiratos' series, which has been posted (RI 12th) and I will respond to if warranted.

Effects of wind turbines are devastating, because:

1. Property values are negatively impacted by planning applications for wind farms, therefore development of a large wind farm off Aquidneck and Little Compton will damage the local tax base due to property devaluation. A report from the United Kingdoms Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors(RICS) studied the effects of wind farm installations on property value.
   
   Review of the study shows that the impact was limited to properties within 1 mile of ground installations during the planning phase, and not after construction and during operation. The study did not examine the case of offshore wind installations. The study's report is available as a PDF. This RICS study also references an earlier study by the same organization which found a negative impact on property values and a US study by the Renewable Energy Policy Project that indicated no change, or an elevation of values within 5 miles of the wind farm. Again, no study included property value effects from offshore installations.
   
   Interestingly, the Mayor Nysted, Denmark has been quoted in the Boston Globe as saying "They're all going up" in reference to property value in his town after the installation of an offshore wind farm.
   
   
   
   
   It should be possible already to determine if there has been any impact from the installation of the windmill at Portsmouth Abbey now that it has been in operation for over a year.
   
   
2. Property Damage is costing money in insurance claims in Germany.
   
   I can find no released study or report indicating where the 200 million Euro figure is sourced. No indication is given by the author, or what I believe is his source to indicate what the nature of the property damage and the cause. The quote seems to have first appeared in this article on UKs Farmers Weekly Interactive in 2004, but is not attributed.
   
   
3. Windmill operation creates infrasound and other effects and these are very large structures, the size of the Statue of Liberty.
   
   The infrasound impacts will be discussed in below in possible impacts on marine life and in part two in their impacts on humans. He is correct, the wind turbines and towers are expected to be up to 400 feet tall.
   
   
4. Wind turbine installation contribute to light pollution, pose a risk to birds and boats. The mayor of Nysted, Denmark home was lit at night by the offshore wind farm near that city. He refers to an OSPAR report about the impacts on citizens and wild life near wind installations.
   
   He appears to be quoting this article in the Boston Globe, which goes on to say that the problem was resolved by complaints to the government. The quote from mayor Dambso-Andersen is misrepresented. Several other articles can be found that describe the mayors initial reactions to the project and his later views on the impact it has had on that city. These can be read on at Cape Cod Today, and on page two of this Boston Globe editorial.
   
   No mention of light pollution impacts on night time sky viewing are made in any of the sources on existing installations. The towers are lit with navigation and air traffic safety lighting, I'm not sure what significant impact these will have at a distance of 1.5 miles. There will likely be impact on viewing stars and celestial objects near the horizon in the direction of the wind mills due to both their blotting effects and lights, but unlikely to be a general "washing out" of the night time sky on shore.
   
   
5. There will be disturbances to marine life because increased sediment temperatures and EM fields near transmission cables as well as noise and vibrations released into the water which may drive species away.
   
   These potential impacts appear to be taken from an OSPAR report detailing possible impacts, but not a study of actual impacts on habitat. At least several of these problems have been addressed in other installations or are understood on how to remediate, including the use of bipolor DC cables to reduce the EM field of the transmission line, as well as using DC transmission line to minimize heating effects.
   
   A recent study produced in part by the Danish Energy Authority attempted to address the impact of construction and operation of offshore wind mills on marine and bird life. Their conclusions are that generally there is no net impact, and a possible increase in biodiversity due to the creation of new habitat niches on the new underwater hardscape. This is no different than the hundreds of years of permanent debris that have ended up in the ocean creating new habitats in the ocean wherever humans go. While every site is different, and results in the US may be different due to different water temperatures, salinity and marine populations, there is no way to know without building a wind farm and studying the impacts as the Danes have done. A summary and the original report are available.
   
   
6. Construction and operation will jeopardize the fishing industry, wind farms will destroy the ecosystem.
   
   See the previous point for impacts on the marine ecosystem. What evidence is there that any of the proposed wind farm locations are active fisheries? There may be an impact if these areas are active fishing grounds and are are declared off limits to boats and therefore prevent use of these areas for fishing. This impact would need be taken into account by a full project plan and study commissioned for a specific wind farm proposal.
   
   
7. Wind power is too variable and doesn't work correctly for integration into the grid due to voltage and frequency mismatches with the generated electricity according to Glenn Schleede, working with the Army Corps of Engineers in 2002.
   
   Variability is a part of the grid, as usage and generating are constantly changing in order to meet the needs of consumers. Wind operators have the technology to predict with reasonable accuracy how much power they can generate within a few day time span and provide power to the grid in accordance with demand.
   Frequency and voltage matching are a technical hurdle that has already been resolved with tens of thousands of wind mills in operation around the world. Some of Schleede's points in various documents available are that there is no reduction in baseload power, wind is high unpredictable and costs energy off the grid in order to make the power usable. Many studies have concluded that while windmills do not lead to the complete shut down of standby and baseload power systems, they do make useful contributions to the total power available on the grid. American Wine Energy Association (AWEA) has a document that explains Mr. Schleede's criticisms and relationship to wind projects over the years.
   
   
8. Additional economic impacts on the $2 billion per year tourism, yachting, tennis, and festivals will hurt or destroy these industries. He draws a comparison to Nixon pulling Navy operations from the area in 1974 and the economic turmoil that resulted.
   
   It is outright nonsense to equate the Navy pullout and the installation of windmills and their economic impacts. The navy being pulled is constitutes the removal of an economic input to the region. I have no reason to doubt that it was devastating at the time. However, it is extremely unlikely that the presence of windmills on the horizon is going to significantly detract from visitors coming to see the attractions of Aquidneck Island and nearby communities.
   
   From the Boston Globe piece earlier referenced, "At first, Damsbo-Andersen worried the wind farm would disrupt a tourism industry based around the town's centuries-old harbor. Tourists continue to arrive even after the wind farm was built, he said. One newly popular attraction is a twice-weekly boat tour of the wind farm"
   
   This also ignores possible economic inputs to the region during the construction and operation. Some portion of the construction and operation costs will need to be spent in local businesses and service providers, and possibly in the creation of local jobs for all phases.
   

Mr. Spiratos concludes his first list of complaints by indicating that a $1.9 billion wind project could be in operation within four years. That the "pristine oceanfront littered with visual and environmental pollution of hundreds of wind turbines" will appear overnight and destroy a "gorgeous, delicate and untouched environment."

I highly doubt that there is currently no visual or ecological impact already made by humans on the so called "pristine" and "untouched" environment in the waters of Rhode Island. If a wind project gets under way and builds, there will be an impact, but the fear mongering and NIMBYism that Mr. Spiratos are just that.

There are currently no formal proposals under consideration. Projected costs range from 900 million to 1.9 billion according to the RIWINDS report, released in April, and summary released in September. Any guess at completion in 4 years is unlikely for a number of reasons. The RIWINDS report suggests that a state run project use an as yet unavailable GE 3MW turbine. A more complete evaluation of the highest potential sites is underway with no date for completion set and the need to not only create state level regulation, but also to study and address existing FAA, DoD, Environmental and other impacts, there are still many years to go until any construction begins. We'll be lucky to see a formal proposal in 1-2 years, regulatory clearance and approvals to follow, at best, a wind farm being online in 5-10 years.

From a guess at costs, at today's electricity costs, assuming $1.9 billion capital cost, and 150MW realized generating capacity, excluding operations costs, subsidies, grants and other incentives, assuming a 20 year capital recovery period, cost would come to approximately 7.2c/kWh. Want to bet that in 5-10 years we'll still be paying 8.3c/kWh for generation on the New England grid with our high dependence on oil and natural gas generation?

I think that some of Mr. Spiratos points are well taken and that a project should be undertaken with the utmost respect for nearby residents and the marine ecology. It is, however, irresponsible to doom such a project before it has even been considered and to start lobbing opposition in the absence of a formal proposal. It is imperative that alternative energy sources be found that reduce the emissions of new green house gases and one of the few working and cost-effective technologies available and which is appropriate to this region is offshore wind. We don't have desert environments to do large scale solar plants, we can harness some geothermal.

A reasonable senator

I recently signed and sent in an internet petition to my U.S. representative and senators regarding proposed funding for Coal To Liquid technology for use a replacement for gasoline. I received the below quoted letter from one of my senators, Sheldon Whitehouse.

I don't agree with all of the items he lists as solutions to climate change as long term solutions, particularly E85 and biodiesel, as the scientific community doesn't seem to have come to a conclusion on the energy and pollution balance of corn-ethanol production, and its difficult to see if ethanol will have a significant impact without stronger action to improve vehicle fuel efficiency. I'm not sure of the issues with biodiesel energy and pollution, other than, again, maximum production, and the environmental impacts of the non-sustainable agricultural practices used to grow soy beans, the primary source of biodiesel.

Dear Mr. ----:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding the expansion of liquid coal technology. As you know, the process of liquefying coal, also known as “coal to liquids,” is an emerging technology that transforms coal into liquid form for use as a transportation fuel.

The development of liquid coal has received increasing attention as a solution to reducing America’s dependence on foreign sources of oil. While reducing our dependence on foreign oil is a goal I ardently support, liquid coal is not the answer to securing America’s energy independence. Liquid coal development promotes expanded use of a non-renewable resource that is extremely harsh on the environment. The coal to liquids process produces twice as many global warming carbon emissions as conventional gasoline. Furthermore, the construction and operation of liquid coal facilities will require huge government subsidies at the expense of American taxpayers. As Congress works to reduce America’s dependence on foreign sources of energy and curtail our contribution to global climate change, we must invest in clean renewable sources of energy to protect our environment and move America toward greater energy independence.

Fortunately, in recent years, we have seen significant advancements in the science and technology needed to reduce global warming and expand affordable energy sources. Renewable energy, such as wind and solar, is more efficient and affordable than ever before. More vehicles are using low-carbon renewable fuels such as E85 and biodiesel. Congress must continue to promote both private and public investment in these essential clean, renewable energy sources.

Again, thank you for contacting me about this important issue. Please be assured that I will continue to fight aggressively in the Senate to expand the use of clean, renewable energy that will lessen our dependence on foreign oil and reduce our nation’s contribution to global climate change. I hope you will continue to stay in touch about this or any other issue of concern to you.

Sincerely,

Sheldon

Rhode Island Wind Power status

The Kent County Times has a nice article up covering the state of current wind deployment and some proposed wind projects by Coventry, West Warwick. It also has a nice outline of the 660kW wind turbine installed at Portsmouth Abbey on Aquidneck Island. No details about the size of the turbines proposed at either location or the total amount of power generation capacity.

They discuss the wind turbine at Portsmouth Abbey, which is called out in the New England Greenstart/RI web pages as one of the few sources of green power within Rhode Island. While the article discusses only wind installations currently under investigations (discounting the proposal from an out of state firm to develop wind resources offshore), it reminded me of the New England GreenStart program. A map of the renewable resources (wind, solar, hydro, biomass) is available on the GreenStart site.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Power from the Wind

Encountered two articles on TreeHugger covering two very different aspects of electric generation from wind power. The first is a technological improvement being introduced in China to reduce the friction associated with a wind turbine through the use of magnets. Seems they are using maglev principles with a permanent magnet versus an electro magnet. This could be a really interesting development, as I suspect this would help to reduce the energy consumed during wind generation, or fed to a wind farm in off peak to keep the turbine running.

The second describes a press release made available from WindTerra for a residential wind turbine now approved for use in California. The system looks to cost about 1/3 that of a solar installation based on the info quoted from the press release. Output is claimed to be over 1600 kwH at an average windspeed of 11.18 mph, though power generation begins at 10.8 mph. It is designed to be a low RPM system to reduce noise and vibration to its host structure as well. Depending on the source, it would appear that the average household annual electricity usage is 8600+ kwH (or around 1kwH/day). At an installed cost of over $7000, it is a better deal than PV, and if combined with a battery system and aggressive energy saving techniques, this could be an interesting addition to homes, but what about installing a small grid of these on a building to offset the occupants electricity?

On the other side of the wind power coin is the National Wind Watch, whose purpose is to point out the negatives and ills of using wind energy. According to their flier, windmills are a "harmful boondoggle". They achieve their "rated" outputs about 1/3 of the time, are unsightly for a number of reasons, potentially dangerous, disturb nature during their construction and operation, and in some cases draw power off the grid instead of contributing. An organization opposed to developing wind power isn't unique, but does claim to not be the mouthpiece of any lobby, but rather a network of concerned individuals. On the upshot, they seem to do a pretty good job of monitoring the media for news related to wind projects, culling local newspapers as well as national and international sources. They're on my watchlist to keep appraised of local developments in Rhode Island.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Rhode Island Energy Efficiency Expo

I had the opportunity to visit the energy expo sponsored by the Rhode Island Office of Energy Resources. It was a small setup, with about 30-40 booths inside the ballroom, several BioDiesel vehicles and a fuel cell powered Model T in the carport, and a biodiesel powered tractor-trailer with a travelling museum display about the history of the Northern woodlands and woodland products, industries, livelihoods of New York and New England.

The most interesting thing that I saw and spoke with a one of the booth staff about was the BioHeating Oil. Currently certified for use by UL in oil furnaces is a B5 blend, meaning 5% vegetable or soy oil with 95% traditional home heating oil. The representative (from hudsonecofuel (website in beta, it will be up soon I was assured) was confident that it was only a matter of time before B10, B15 and B20 blends were certified by UL for use in furnaces, just as occurred in BioDiesel blends. Unfortunately, I was unable to stay until 3pm when the gentleman from the booth was to give a presentation.

I didn't ask about the composition, but I got the impression that generally the blend is being made from virgin soybean oil, though they did have samples of used fryolator oil and the cleaned and refined cooking oil.

Only three vendors are offering BioHeating oil in the state right now. One of them has B100 (100% oil from vegetable sources), which you can then custom blend in the tank to get whatever blend the homeowner is comfortable with. The only warning he had however, was that it was best to start with a B5 blend, as the vegetable oil acts as a solvent. This is a problem for older oil storage tanks due to the debris that collects in the tank over time from the bacteria that are naturally found in heating oil settling out. The vegetable oil starts to break this down and can cause the filter to clog as the tank cleans out. His recommendation was to have a spare filter on hand, and run B5 for a month before upping the blend to B10 up to B20 by managing the amount of BioHeating oil delivered.

So, lesson - make sure to have a spare filter on hand, you will clog the filter when switching to a fuel with a Bio component.

I didn't get any information on pricing compared to traditional heating oil.

The companies offering BioHeating Oil in Rhode Island:
T.H. Malloy
White Fuel
Guardian Fuel and Energy Systems

I also spoke with a woman at the New England GreenStart booth. They have a heating oil cost assistance program that anyone who chooses them as their electricity generator (not deliverer, thats going to be National Grid). The idea is that while a consumer may pay slightly more for their electricity, through People's Discount Heating Oil Service, the increased electricity cost can be offset with with discounts on home heating oil at 15 to 30 cents/gallon. Membership is $20/year in the program. When signing up, the consumer is paired with a participating oil provider, including a BioHeating Oil option.

Otherwise, there were the usual fair of energy efficiency products on display: Windows, hot water heater, solar hot water heaters, PV systems, ground water heat exchange, home energy and air infiltration testing. The local energy utility, National Grid, had a large number of booths, advocating home energy efficiency testing, appliance purchase assistance for more energy efficient appliances.

More on Rhode Island wind project

An interview with the Commissioner of Rhode Island Energy Resources about the RIWINDS project conducted by US Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy office.

Interestingly, his analysis that it would take 5-7 years to develop any of the sites proposed in the study, which is what I guessed in my earlier post.

The image is from page 65 of the study and shows the proposed regions with best wind characteristics.

Alternative Electric Generator for Rhode Island

I'm glad to see that Rhode Island and New England in general have the opportunity to choose the generation company used to provide their electric needs. Rhode Island Green Start allows the customer to select a company that uses 100% non-fossil fuel energy sources, and National Grid handles the billing and delivery. This gives customers an opportunity to vote with their dollars at a relatively low cost increase due to higher generation charges. The program allows the customer to allocate either 50% or 100% of their energy use as coming from a green energy program. Additional cost is 2.4c/kWh for 100% or 1.25c/kWh for the lower.

If you want to sign up, you can sign-up on the GreenStart site. You'll need to have your electric bill account number. After signing up, National Grid will handle purchasing the generation certificates needed to certify that the amount of power used in the your home was purchased from a renewable energy provider.

PA used to offer a similar program to this, as I recall the provider was Green Mountain Energy, but that went away and the only way to contribute to renewable electric technologies was to essentially buy your electricity twice. Being a bit of a fiscal conservative, that never made much sense to me.

Rhode Island Wind Farms Study

From TreeHugger, Rhode Island has commissioned and released a study (pdf) on the areas of the state most effective for the construction of wind farms. Only one onshore location was identified for large scale generation, and 10 potential offshore sites were identified. Several towns in the state have also expressed interest in participating in wind generation projects.

Its good to see that the governor and state has taken an interest and is setting a goal of 15% of electricity demand from wind power. The report seems to hold promise that this could be a practical project if there is political will to allocate the capital to building the turbines and creating the infrastructure to move the power from offshore wind farms onto the grid. It does point out also, however, that the structure of the New England electrical grid as a single market makes it difficult or impossible to guarantee that the power generated in Rhode Island is used in Rhode Island. They propose that some form of restructuring of the New England grid and/or an energy authority be created for Rhode Island to manage this and make sure that Rhode Island residents receive the benefits of this fixed cost electricity rather than the New England power market as a whole.

As with any such project, it will be slow to actually appear, even without a search for funding, the off-shore wind turbines that are proposed probably won't be available for 3-5 years. Given that, it'll probaby be 5-7 years before any off-shore wind power is added to the grid. A not-yet available turbine is recommended because of economies of scale for large offshore installation. By using a 3.6MW turbine, fewer towers can be constructed to generate the 200MW total for a site, reducing the capital costs, instead of using the proven and semi-stadard 1.5MW turbine.


There was also some examination of siting smaller wind installations for industrial clients as well, though only 4 were appropriate for "utility scale wind turbines."