More

Largest Offshore Wind Farm In U.S. Proposed For Rhode Island Coast

ERIC TUCKER   12/ 8/10 05:42 PM ET   AP

Wind Farm

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A renewable energy company has proposed what it says would be the largest offshore wind farm in the United States: a 200-turbine, 1,000-megawatt project off the coast of Rhode Island that would provide power to multiple states along the East Coast.

Deepwater Wind LCC, which recently moved its headquarters from New Jersey to Providence, says the turbines would be far enough offshore as to be barely visible from land and would be located in the ocean waters of Rhode Island Sound.

The company has submitted an application for the project, estimated to cost between $4 billion to $5 billion, to the U.S. Department of the Interior to lease the site where it plans to build the wind farm. It hopes to begin construction in 2014 and have the first turbines in operation by the end of 2015.

The project will require state and federal approval.

"We're just at the beginning of the federal review process. It's a lengthy permitting process, and I think the site we've proposed isn't written in stone," Deepwater Wind CEO William Moore told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

The company says it's planning an undersea transmission network that would connect the project to eastern Long Island and southern New England and send power to states including Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut.

Deepwater Wind says the project's large size would mean lower prices compared with other proposed wind farms.

"We've done a lot of engineering of this project and are confident that we can come up with a cost that's a whole lot less than what's been discussed to date," Moore said.

The federal government this year approved the Cape Wind project, a 130-turbine wind farm planned for Nantucket Sound. The starting price is 18.7 cents per kilowatt hour – about double today's price of power from conventional sources – and increases 3.5 percent per year for the life of the contract.

Outgoing Rhode Island Gov. Don Carcieri and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick signed an agreement last summer to look into wind development in the federal waters around both states. Massachusetts looks forward to learning more about the Deepwater Wind proposal, said Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Ian Bowles.

"No project will go forward without the agreement of both governors, and the states sharing economic benefits equitably," Bowles said in a statement.

The Deepwater Wind proposal is on top of a much smaller pilot project planned by the company off the coast of Block Island. Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch has appealed the power purchase agreement to the state Supreme Court, saying the 24.4-cents-per-kilowatt deal would force Rhode Islanders to buy overpriced electricity.

Michael Trainor, a spokesman for Gov.-elect Lincoln Chafee, said Wednesday that Chafee was "an enthusiastic supporter of renewable energy and looks forward to Rhode Island being a leader with renewable energy and having so-called green jobs being a part of our economic rebound." Chafee was briefed on the proposal Tuesday.

But he also said Chafee was mindful of the pending court case before the Supreme Court.

"His position on this specific proposal will of course be informed by the outcome of this litigation," Trainor said.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A renewable energy company has proposed what it says would be the largest offshore wind farm in the United States: a 200-turbine, 1,000-megawatt project off the coast of Rhode...
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A renewable energy company has proposed what it says would be the largest offshore wind farm in the United States: a 200-turbine, 1,000-megawatt project off the coast of Rhode...
Filed by Zoe Triska  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 20
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
06:20 AM on 12/12/2010
Great news!!!!
04:36 PM on 12/10/2010
Before we get too excited over wind power, there needs to be more research on integrating the unpredictable intermittent generation of power into the main power grid. Denmark is a leader in wind power with the capacity to cover 25% of their total power needs. However, due to typical integration problems, they only get about 3% usage out of wind farms.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
09:28 AM on 12/10/2010
Great opportunity for 2 governors to show leadership on clean energy. May the project go smoothly and be installed quickly.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
11:08 PM on 12/09/2010
The cost of building a new nuclear power plant of 1megawatt is now around $14 billion. Here we have 1 megawatt of wind power for $5 billion. No chance for large disaster, no pollution, no large water use, no radiation to the area, no mining, no drilling or transportation for fuel during the entire 20 + years of operation. Please explain to me why anyone is against the use of wind power.
GHO
Sooner or later you run out of other peoples money
10:21 AM on 12/10/2010
Well, based on past experience, we've learned it's ok to oppose wind power if the turbines are where you yacht.

While I favor wind power, you do need to keep another thing in mind. The 1megawatt rating is just that - a rating. That is the MAX energy generation capacity. Unfortunately, in real life, wind turbines typically produce only 25-30% of rated capability, so we're really talking about somewhere around 300 KWatts for $5B. The nuke plant can actually generate the 1MWatt on demand.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
12:24 PM on 12/10/2010
Output is based on the quality of the location. To take some average from who knows what kind of study and then try to show that as the last word is pointless and inaccurate. While the nuclear plant requires constant mining, transportation of fuels , processing and enrichment of fuels, complicated and super long term storage of wastes, that after 50 years still have not found an agreeable site. Compare that to machinery that runs on wind and then talk about efficiency. The fake economic numbers used by the nuclear industry are concealing costs. Wind energy will not produce huge disaster areas or widespread pollution. They also do not need government supported liability insurance, as risk of damage is very small.
05:33 PM on 12/10/2010
Your math is way off. A new nuclear plant is estimated to cost around $1.4 to 3.5 million per MW, whereas the wind farm will cost $4.0 to 5.0 million per MW. A new nuclear plant would be more like 100 - 250 MW total capacity. Denmark, with close to 20% wind power capacity has an electricity cost of $0.38 per KWh whereas the US average is $0.08 per KWh.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
04:51 AM on 12/11/2010
A nuclear power plant for a few million dollars? It is not my numbers that are off, and I certainly don't get the rates that low. Try again, this time try to stay within this universe.
07:50 PM on 12/09/2010
Now that Teddy is gone it might get built
05:28 PM on 12/09/2010
Environmentalists and Green Minded Entrepreneurs need to start thinking like the oil barons. I applaud the idea of off-shore wind farms.It would be fantastic if their PR people could also be able to sell the public on the fact that the turbines and all necessary equipment were to be bought from American companies .Making jobs for America... even.the damnable republicans would have a hard time fighting that kind of rhetoric .

"Almost" out of sight doesn't get however. Take a look at the Gulf. There are about 27,000 environmental catastrophes waiting to happen (They call'em off-shore oil wells) and the nimrods that stand once again to have not only their environment trashed, but also their livelihoods see absolutely "no problem" with that situation.

If you can't "see" it...it ain't a problem.

Use your heads guys and girls...get the windmills completely out of sight.

The advice is free.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
csuciadams
Planner/Engineer Extraordinaire
09:36 PM on 12/09/2010
Why does it matter if they are just a spec on the horizon to anyone? What if getting them out of sight would cost millions more because they are now off the continental shelf?
02:37 PM on 12/10/2010
You need to direct that question to the wealthy people that paid lots of money for their exclusive unobstructed views of the ocean. They , along with with tourist dependant businesses will ultimately be the ones to offer resistance to the project.

This is America................not in my backyard applies.


It may cost "Billions " to get them out of site

It cold cost more money and more time fighting it out in court.

Not getting them out of site may ultimately cost not getting it done at all.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
11:14 PM on 12/09/2010
Don't worry the coal and oil use will provide plenty of air pollution to hide these barely visible specks on the horizon. If that was all I could ague with I would have to stop arguing. Even if not one part of these turbines are made in the US, all the foundations and installations and maintenance will be local. All the fuel free electricity and the clean air will be for our benefit. Plus it saves money, where is the downside? I cannot see it.