Slashdot Mirror
The US's First Offshore Wind Farm Will Cut Local Power Prices By 40%
merbs writes: The U.S. is finally getting its first offshore wind farm. Deepwater Wind has announced that its Block Island project has been fully financed, passed the permitting process, and will begin putting "steel in water" this summer. For local residents, that means a 40% drop in electricity rates. The company has secured $290 million in financing, with funding from the likes of Key Bank and France's Société Générale, in part on the strength of its long-term power purchase agreement with US utility National Grid. Block Island has thus surpassed the much-publicized Cape Wind project, long touted as "the nation's first offshore wind farm," but that has been stalled out for over a decade in Massachusetts, held up by a tangle of clean power foes, regulatory and financing woes, and Cape Cod homeowners afraid it'd ruin the view.
Deepwater Wind, eh? That name should be great, because we all have fond memories of something whose name previously began with Deepwater.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Discuss.
I give blowjobs.
To "preserve the view", I vote we erect the turbines, but make them look like giant penises sticking out of the ocean.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
just as they've blocked all of the others.
Yeah right. I can't believe they are allowed to make statements like that --- "40% reduction blah blah" --- isn't that against Federal Law?
Yipppeeeeeee for the new wind farms!
Cape Wind farm in Massachusetts is DOA. No one with any brains wants to finance this boondoggle, Cape Wind as a business is having problems and the project is hated by many on Cape Cod, including the Kennedys.
All of the predictions said the power generated by the windmills would cost customers twice as much as fossil fuel plants. Idiot Duval Patrick pushed this on us but he's gone now and Cape Wind has no supporters.
All wind farms do is chop birds up in their propellers. Check the base of any land-based windmill and that's what you'll see - dead birds.
The reason they are saving money is because the project is connecting them to the grid, not because they are getting wind power. at 300$million if they sell at the local rates of ~14cents a kwh (24 in the winter) they aren't making any money by selling power to the locals because its really 14-24cents kwh for offshore wind, there is no profit margin there. Good way to appease the locals, put an eyesore in, and cover their electrical bills. In the end its money that wins, but that all depends on how the wind blows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_wind_power#mediaviewer/File:LCOE_comparison_fraunhofer_november2013.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_wind_power#Economics_and_benefits
The US Energy Information Agency only 5 years ago claimed offshore wind farms as the second most expensive electricity production method around...
On Block Island, it’s the Block Island Power Company, whose on-island generators run on diesel fuel, which must be shipped to the island by boat.
A 2010 Providence Journal story on the island’s power system noted that diesel fuel regularly costs $1 more per gallon on the island than on the mainland.
In fiscal 2011, according to a report by the town’s Electric Utility Task Group on the fiscal costs and benefits of the wind-farm project, the average cost of electricity on the island was 47 cents per kilowatt hour. In the rest of Rhode Island it was 14.8 cents.
Once the cable is laid and the wind farm project is on line, in 2014 or 2015, Block Island Power will be able to purchase electricity from the New England power network at much lower costs.
The task group estimated that electric rates on the island -- based on a 20-year agreement between Deepwater Wind and National Grid -- would fall to 30.7 cents per kilowatt hour, a 35.4-percent decrease from 2011 rates.
(The island’s rates would still be substantially higher than those on the mainland because its customers would be paying for a portion of the costs for installing the cable and for maintenance of the island’s power system.)
The task group’s analysis noted that current power costs on Block Island have risen to 54 cents per kilowatt hour because of the increasing diesel costs. Based on that figure, the decrease would be a 42-percent drop -- about what Deepwater said in its Tweet.
The other article doesn't mention anything about how much power and at what price the wind farm will be generating it. It sounds like the public relations department is doing all the talking.
Deltron 3030 - Virus (music video)
Headline is misleading. It is not the turbines, but the link to the national grid that is making power cheaper for the island.
Until now, they depended on small local diesel generators.
You can bet that the 30MW wind plant is a lot more expensive than the diesel generators were.
I'd be interested to know the economics of the plant, but supplying cheaper power to the island will be an utterly trivial component.
So much more efficient, in every sense of the word!
This is a waste.
Monumental abuse.
It isn't the Republicans, well, not ultimately. It's the power companies. They don't want cheap electricity that cuts out their operational costs and accounting schemes.
Republicans are just the current party whose votes are being bought. They'd buy any other they could.
Any information on if this project is subsidized or not? I checked the articles briefly but I didn't see anything either way. If this project is being built without subsidies, that's great, it means that technology is catching up and this kind of energy is finally becoming economically viable on a large scale.
Love sees no species.
WIndfarms are great, but don't claim magic 40% numbers
From TFA:
Who exactly are "clean power foes"?
This seems like using an epithet to delegitimize others.
I'm sure there are people who oppose this project for stupid reasons, like "it'd ruin the view". But I am equally sure that absolutely nobody opposes this project because it is too clean.
I suppose that if you looked and looked, you could find someone who is so certain that an ice age is coming that he wants all power generated by burning stuff. But even this imaginary guy isn't really a foe of clean power, he's just a fan of carbon dioxide.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Don't count your ergs before they are generated.
Block island has a population of 1051 people and has to ship in diesel for power generation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
So currently they using just about the worst system for commercial generation, paying high fuel and operating at a scale that is barely viable to begin with. The article also doesn't mention just what they are doing for energy storage or backup.
Either way if that is what is needed to make wind viable I wouldn't hold my breath.
http://www.politifact.com/rhod...
The actual price for the power would be 30 cents/ KWHR.
Turbine bird deaths are a red herring. An estimated 10000-40000 birds die each year from turbines.
First of all, your numbers are plain wrong, by an order of magnitude.
But given any number, the question is - what is that number out of how many working turbines?
Because there are a LOT of structures, and powerlines, and other things that also kill birds as you mentioned. But you are giving us no idea if the number killed by turbines is proportionately higher or not, only absolute numbers with no means to intelligently compare...
All the intelligent reader has to do is mull over how many times they have seen dead birds beneath skyscrapers and other structures, and compare that to a rough average of at least a few dead birds per day, per turbine.
But then you are AC, so all you were really interested in is making up facts (most of those number s are suspect: and spin to make wind power seem harmless.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
> the power companies
That's a ridiculous conspiracy theory. If this was profitable, they're the ones that would be building the wind farms.
Not so hard to reduce prices 40% when you are up against a local monopoly that has been gouging it's customers by ridiculous amounts.
I wonder if in another 50 or 100 years we will have people screaming about how thoughtless this generation was in taking energy out of the earths natural winds and currents thus altering long term climate. I know it is such a tiny proportion that is extracted, but still I do wonder. nothing is free, the cost is just not as visible.
Using wind energy to power our cities still converts electricity into heat. This heat warms the atmosphere and creates stronger winds for us to harvest. The more wind energy we use the stronger the winds, it's a vicious cycle.
A few weeks ago, the UK had about 25% of its power needs supplied by wind.
Ok, it was at 05:30 in the morning and was a very windy period but it meant that leccy provided by coal fired power stations could be throttled back considerably.
Sure wind is variable so you need a good mix of supply sources from Coal to Gas to Nuclear to Solar to Wind and even Tidal.
IMHO the US Gov needs to get off its collective ass and make renewable generation a priority through federal laws. This will mean that the power company lobby will have to be defeated but for the long term benefit of the country then this needs to happen.
Until you do that and start to catch up with a goot part of the rest of the world, the slide of the US towards becoming a 3rd world country will continue.
No longer are you No 1.
They want you to think that it was the wind turbines that would make electricity 40% cheaper when its the access to the mainland grid fossil/nuclear/hydroelectric powered energy, all of which the greens oppose, which will be responsible for any price cuts.
No such creature exists. It would like a expecting your aquarium fish to live in the sand in the desert.
1) New infrastructure that they don't have currently rolled out means the infrastructure they're currently milking for nearly pure profit won't make as much profit
2) Other people will be able to make money off this, which to the accoutant mindset (which now includes most politicians and business owners) means that they're losing money
3) Lower prices means less money without increasing profits as a %, which means less profit even if they moved to the new generation system entirely, even if getting the generators for free.
The clue is "cut local prices by 40%".
study. [rice.edu] Philosophies must members all over go4ls I personally
Ask the Apollo 13 crew why they needed a CO2 scrubber.
PS don't link to a set of links to a PR scam site run by nonscientists.
Wind energy is a scam. They don't run on wind, they run on taxpayers money.
If wind farms elsewhere are any indication, then that $290M will do nothing to build a decent size wind farm. In comparison, the Gemini wind farm park in the North Sea costs €2.8 Billion to build, for just 150 turbines. On top of that, this farm needs to be subsidized with €4.4 Billion in the next 15 years to become 'profitable'. See: http://geminiwindfarm.com/
So with 150 turbines for €7 Billion, how many turbines will that get you for $290M?
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
One is taken to wondering how power prices can drop 40% when there are tons of new infrastructure being bought and labor being paid to install it. Wind power isn't *THAT* much cheaper to run. I have a funny feeling there are significant tax breaks being given to the companies installing the stuff and tax increases being levied on citizens to make this 40% drop happen...which, if true, means it's not really 40% cheaper, it's just those savings are being offset by higher costs elsewhere.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
What a misleading story. Rich folks want to hook their vacation homes up to the mainland power grid. Since that isn't enough justification for laying cable so they create a wind farm boondoggle, to sell power back to the grid at 3X the cost. Only in Obama's crony capitalist America. Burn coal!
I've love the sight of an eco-friendly windmill on my horizon, don't understand why people complain so much about it.
The sound would be unacceptable though, if that's still a problem.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
No it won't. Simple as that.
Show me the 40% reduction and I'll believe it. For now I think it will be a 40% INCREASE.
On top of the normal maintenance etc., the problem with the current crop of "renewable" energy is you cannot count on them producing enough energy when you actually need it. You may be able to count on a mean or average amount, but consumption is more of a constant. You have to have backup power (non-renewable) or very expensive storage systems to provide power when the wind dies down (or sun goes down, etc.) or you end up with rolling or regional blackouts when you don't have the power available. Those backup sources require maintenance and upkeep as well as the renewable energy.
When you hear puffery about how much the renewable energy will save - they tend to omit those backup plants etc. My father was given the option of "paying for" wind power in a coastal area or just the grid power.... when I mentioned that the electricity goes on the same grid and you don't get what you pay for (someone else might) and the cost of having someone else use the power that you are paying more for.... he opted for the normal power grid power. Without subsidies, it was more expensive.
Because all of those fat evil capitalists with their big cigars and suits are sitting around a table plotting against clean energy! Those bastards! The Koch Brothers(tm) are probably involved too!
The rates may go down for the tiny island of Block Island, but the rates for the rest of Rhode Island will double and meanwhile the wholesale price of electricity that these bandits buy had dropped 50%. It is a huge, expensive scam that Rhode Island's corrupt politicians pushed through that will hang like an albatross around the neck of the state for 2 decades.
I live in South Eastern MA. I have a notice from National Grid that our rates our going up! They already went up and are going up even higher when the Brayton Point Power Plant goes offline. Our natural gas bill is also hiked up because the local power plants are now predominantly burning natural gas. Pilgrim Nuclear has had issues and will be going permanently offline soon. The windfarm won't power all of southeastern ma and ri. So much for buying an electric or plug-in hybrid car. I think we need to generate our own power... by sun, wind, propane, lng, etc.
wind farms or frack drills.
Fuck it, you're getting both. One'll be a hundred foot white elephant every 200 feet, the other'll fuck up your water supply but you won't be able to sue anyone because your local government has already taken the backhander for the immunity.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
I wonder what the results would be of some electrical glitch putting 30 megawatts of electricity into the sea surrounding the wind turbines.
Can any EE guys weigh in on the physics of this?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
From TFA:
In fiscal 2011, according to a report by the town’s Electric Utility Task Group on the fiscal costs and benefits of the wind-farm project, the average cost of electricity on the island was 47 cents per kilowatt hour. In the rest of Rhode Island it was 14.8 cents.
So at a 40% savings, the island will still pay DOUBLE the rate of the rest of New England. Can we get back to reality on how much "green" energy really costs and stop with the misleading headlines?
the same amount switching over to gasoline generators.
Nuclear power is in the billions to build a plant. We have 2 in the USA that are not coming cheap. It NEVER includes all the free or really cheap government services that nuclear power gets and needs. You complain about wind but nuclear burns money and costs more than solar; graft is always included for both. Thing is, with big massive centralized power generation you have a few powerful players who's political pull is greater than smaller more distributed alternatives (unless the smaller players can unite.)
I've read many times that no nuclear power station in the USA has ever made a profit. ever. not without accounting games shifting the cost onto tax payers. It's a game of stealing as much money as possible; not making legitimate profit. I know in my area they will build stations with lots of bonuses/incentives and low interest loans etc-- then years later get even more taken off if not chucking the remainder of the debt plus expansions of tax-free periods etc. (in the name of jobs, but really these new jobs are being subsidized.) Maybe 30 years later it gets even but the debt and incentives are not repaid. But to be fair, power generation is infrastructure that helps the local economy in ways you can't directly measure... like roads. but it would be better if it were handled like the roads... which have less overhead and work just as well.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
In the case of Cape Wind, the real reason for the opposition to it is that the power from it would be MORE expensive than from other sources so electric rates on Cape Cod and ISO New England areas receiving its generation would go up. That is even with all the tax payer subsidies thrown in.
Environmental impact is certainly another factor including damage to fishing grounds, potential oil leaks from the turbines and from maintenance activities and possible damage to the tourism industry (which is the main industry in the area). When electric rates on Cape Cod and in New England are already about the highest in the country - we don't need our taxes going up to subsidize this and also have our electric rates going up more. Hydro power from Canada can be imported more cheaply to increase the renewable energy mix. What New England critically needs is to increase gas pipeline capacity from the mid-west to support power generation as well as home and industrial use. Right now at certain times gas power generation needs to be curtailed due to lack of gas supply. Solid fossil fuel base load capacity is needed regardless of what is done with wind power since the wind isn't always blowing, or ironically, is sometimes blowing too hard causing the wind turbines to be shutdown to prevent damage.
Nuclear is dead - it is going to keep withering away and critical mass to support the fuel and spare parts production cost effectively will be lost. The new plant designs are still riddled with cost overruns and the high staffing costs which are causing many existing plants to become money losers. They also don't sufficiently address the risks of existing plants as underscored by Fukishima. Maybe if someone created a brand new design from a blank slate something viable would emerge, but the new GE and Westinghouse plants are just updates to the designs that date back to the '60's. Maybe smaller, modular, factory built power units would work but they are still focused on large scale centralized plants. Current available designs just need too many employees to operate to be cost competitive with gas turbine/combined cycle plants. You might have 150-200 employees at a large gas plant but the nuke will have 600-800 or more. Also the gas plant is more fully covering all of its costs of operation, nuclear does not and only exists due a 1950's era law that indemnifies plant operators from liability if there is an accident. If more of the true costs were placed on the nuke plant operators as they are with other forms of power generation none of them would have ever been build. That doesn't even account for the still open issue of what to do with the spent fuel rods building up at the existing plants or the cost of dealing with them.
To keep a competitive market, a good mix of plant types needs to be kept available (even if on standby) including gas, oil, coal, hydro, wind and solar otherwise one type of fuel supplier will realize they can charge whatever they want. Wind and solar projects need to be able to provide power cost competitive with other sources - something that Cape Wind will not do if it is built.
This wind farm makes no financial sense. If they are going to run an undersea cable to connect the island to the mainland grid, just stop there. Pay for that capex of the line and decommission the generators. There is no financial sense in building the wind farm. The high cost of the island is because it is not connected to the mainland. Once connected, the energy costs will be the same as the mainland (once the undersea cable is paid for).
40% cheaper? Mmmm!! good luck with that it's proving anything but cheaper in the UK and they have to shut the things down if it gets a lititle too windy - don't throw your candles out yet
No problem with the article, but the title should read:
"Subsidies extorted from taxpayers will lower local power prices by 40%"
A more interesting subject would be who paid off which politicians to permit the robbery.