Mills' Energy Office Releases Preferred Site For 16-Square Mile Offshore Wind Farm

Updated July 13, 2021 at 12:42 PM EDT

Governor Janet Mills’ energy office has just released its preferred site for a 16-square mile offshore wind farm of up to a dozen turbines. Private developers would construct and operate the facility, which would use a unique floating-platforms system developed at the University of Maine.

The site lies in federal waters roughly 35-to-40 miles south of Bremen, and somewhat closer to Monhegan Island. Mills wants to seek a federal "research lease" authorizing the project. Research on the technology’s effects on ecosystems and fisheries is the stated goal. Maine ratepayers would provide the funding through their bills.

The proposal is being praised by renewable energy advocates and businesses, and some conservation groups, but is almost universally opposed by the state's lobster industry. The energy office is holding an informational webinar Tuesday afternoon.

"Any sort of large development is going to have an impact," says Sarah Haggerty, a conservation biologist at Maine Audubon. "They did a great job of reaching out to potential stakeholders to get feedback to try to eliminate as much of that negative feedback as possible."

In an email, Friendship lobsterman Dustin Delano says after his first look at the document, he is disappointed. He says the preferred area appears to be in waters where he fishes, and near an area where federal regulators are considering periodic fishing closures to protect endangered North Atlantic right whales.

“It looks like Zones E and D as expected will suffer more loss of bottom on top of the huge whale closure,” Delano said. “I’m not sure what brought them to where they are, but perhaps we’ll find out tomorrow night. “

In the document released Monday, the Governor’s Energy Office says it may adjust the final location after public comment: “GEO will request a lease for approximately 16-square-miles that allows for flexibility for the final turbine location and layout. Those future decisions will be informed by stakeholder input and based on how to maximize research opportunities while minimizing impacts to resources, consideration of existing activities and uses in the area, and a better understanding of bathymetry after additional survey work is completed.”

An advocate for Maine’s groundfishermen praised the Department of Marine Resources — which advised the Governor’s Energy Office — for hard work to find an area that would have the fewest impacts. But in an email, Ben Martens, executive director of the Maine Coast Fishermen’s Association, also raised concerns that while the chosen site, with its muddy bottom, might be little-used by the lobster industry, other fishermen would lose out.

“Unfortunately, when you use effort data in a state dominated by lobster to cite offshore development, the other fisheries in Maine tend to get overshadowed,” he said. “Groundfish, tuna, herring, and monkfish fishermen will all be disproportionately impacted by this location and we hope [the Governor's Energy Office] will now take the time to directly reach out to, and work with, those fishing families who rely on this area to make a living to ensure the smallest possible community impact."

See the following link for more, including map:

https://www.mainepublic.org/environment-and-outdoors/2021-07-12/mil...

************************************* 


Fair Use Notice: This website may reproduce or have links to copyrighted material the use of which has not been expressly authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available, without profit, as part of our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, economic, scientific, and related issues. It is our understanding that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided by law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Views: 137

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Kenneth Capron on August 8, 2021 at 3:35pm

International Partnering Forum for Offshore Wind

IPF Together: August 24–26, 2021, Richmond, VA

The Business Network for Offshore Wind’s International Partnering Forum (IPF) convenes the global offshore wind industry and offer the latest in education, networking, and platforms to help the offshore wind industry grow. Agenda and registration details are on the IPF website.

Offshore WINDPOWER 2021 Conference & Exhibition

Conference and Exhibition: October 13–15, 2021, Boston, MA

The American Clean Power Association will host the Offshore WINDPOWER 2021 Conference & Exhibition which provides opportunities for the offshore wind industry to cultivate relationships and tour exhibitions with offshore wind developers and experts. More information and registration are on the event website.

Sandia Blade Workshop-Save the Date

Workshop: October 25–28, 2021, Albuquerque, NM

The workshop convenes wind energy experts from industry, national laboratories, and universities to discuss research and development of wind turbine blades. For more information, visit Sandia’s website.

National Offshore Wind Research & Development Technical Symposium

Virtual: November 8–10, 2021

The National Offshore Wind R&D Consortium virtual Technical Symposium will feature presentations from researchers working on Consortium-funded projects as well as industry panels on regional supply chain solutions, dual power systems, controls and design optimization, grid integration, wildlife monitoring, digitization, data collection, artificial intelligence, and floating offshore wind platforms and mooring solutions. Register on the event website.

CLEANPOWER 2021

Tradeshow and Business Development: Dec 7–8, 2021, Salt Lake City, UT

The American Clean Power Association’s CLEANPOWER 2021 will feature topics related to utility-scale wind, solar, storage, and transmission. The focus is to bring together the different technologies that make up the renewables mix—land-based wind, offshore wind, solar, storage, and transmission—as well as the different segments within the industries: manufacturers, construction firms, owner-operators, utilities, financial firms, and corporate entities. Register on the event website.

Comment by Robert Feller on July 18, 2021 at 7:39am

It is time for the citizens of Maine to become educated as to the real cost of wind and solar subsidies and the clear and established fact that there is no possible way for either of these to replace fossil fuels for reliable electricity.  In other countries the citizens have reached this educated conclusion years ahead of the democratic lead left wing zealots who continue the long disproven diatribe about global warming.

https://stopthesethings.com/2021/07/18/enough-is-enough-time-to-end...

Comment by Robert Feller on July 16, 2021 at 9:27pm

It is impossible to fix stupid and Mills is the personification of the word stupid.  Not one watt of electricity would happen without the wasteful use of hard working taxpayers money as subsidies to keep this boondoggle afloat.

Comment by Willem Post on July 16, 2021 at 8:06pm

Maine’s $100M Floating Offshore Wind Project Finds Major Backers: RWE and Mitsubishi

Two heavyweight global offshore wind investors will acquire UMaine’s demonstration project, which could be built by 2023.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/maines-floating-offsho...

After years of development, the University of Maine has landed two major energy investors for its floating offshore wind demonstration project, announcing that units of Japan’s Mitsubishi Corp. and German utility RWE will buy and build the project — a potential door-opener for the U.S. floating wind market.

RWE Renewables and Mitsubishi-owned Diamond Offshore Wind have formed a new joint venture, known as New England Aqua Ventus, that will acquire, develop and eventually operate the single-turbine floating wind project that is expected to cost $100 million. 

The joint venture hopes to finalize the design work in 2021, sign the supply-chain contracts in 2022 and build the project in 2023, said Wojciech Wiechowski, senior manager at RWE Renewables, in a Wednesday interview.

RWE claims to be the world's second-largest developer of offshore wind projects, after Denmark's Ørsted. Aqua Ventus will be its first project in U.S. waters, and one of a small handful of floating demonstration projects it's investing in globally, Wiechowski said.

Comment by Penny Gray on July 16, 2021 at 6:57pm

Excellent information on floating wind turbines, thank you Willem Post.  My fear is that those figures doom Maine's mountains to industrial scale development because the unreliable electricity produced would be much cheaper by land than by sea.  By hook or crook, literally and figuratively, it seems these monstrous machines are going to be shoved down Mainers throats.

Comment by Willem Post on July 16, 2021 at 6:09pm

Heat Pumps are Money Losers in my Vermont House (as they are in almost all people's houses)

 

I installed three Mitsubishi, 24,000 Btu/h HPs, each with 2 heads; 2 in the living room, 1 in the kitchen, and 1 in each of 3 bedrooms.

The HPs last about 15 years. Turnkey capital cost was $24,000

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-o...

 

They are used for heating and cooling my 35-y-old, 3500 sq ft, well-sealed/well-insulated house.

The house has 2” of blueboard, R-10, on the outside of the concrete foundation and under the basement slab which has saved me many thousands of space heating dollars over the 35 years.

 

Energy Cost Reduction: Before HPs, my space heating propane was 1,000 gal/y

After HPs, it was 750 gal/y, a reduction of 250 gal/y, or $600/y, at $2.399/gal; I am a member of a fuel-buying group.

Additional electricity cost was 1,899 kWh x 20 c/kWh = $380/y, including taxes, fees and surcharges.

Domestic hot water, DHW, heating, requires about 200 gallon/y

My energy cost savings were 600 - 380 = $220/y, on an investment of $24,000!!

 

My existing Viessmann propane system is used on cold days, 15F or less, because HPs would have low efficiencies, i.e., low Btu/kWh, at exactly the same time my house would need the most heat; a perverse situation, due to the laws of Physics 101!!

 

The HPs would be slightly more efficient than electric resistance heaters at -10F, the Vermont HVAC design temperature.

It would be extremely irrational to operate air source HPs at such temperatures.

 

Vermont forcing, with subsidies and/or mandates, the addition of expensive RE electricity, such as wind, solar, batteries, etc., would increase electric rates and worsen the economics of HP operation!!

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol...

 

Amortizing Heat Pumps: Amortizing the $24,000 turnkey capital cost at 3.5%/y for 15 years costs about $2,059/y.

This is in addition to the amortizing of my existing propane system. I am losing money.

https://www.myamortizationchart.com

 

There likely would be service calls and parts for the HP system, as the years go by.

This is in addition to the annual service calls and parts for my existing propane system. 

 

Cost of CO2 Reduction would be (2059, amortize - 220 energy saving + 200, parts and maintenance)/0.838, table 4 = $2,433/Mt, which is even greater than electric school buses. I am losing more money.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-bus-systems-l...

 

Ground Source HPs: They are widely used in many different buildings in northern Europe, such as Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland.

 

Their main advantage is the coefficient of performance, COP, does not decrease with temperature, because the ground temperature is constant; i.e., 100% of fuel oil, or propane, or natural gas can be economically displaced, whereas the economic displacement would be at most 50% with air source HPs; the percentage depends on how well a building is sealed and insulated.

 

Their main disadvantage is greater turnkey capital cost

 

NOTE:

If I had a highly sealed, highly insulated house, with the same efficient propane heating system, my house would use very little energy for space heating

BTW, about 1.0 to 1.5 percent of Vermont households have such housing.

 

If I would install HPs, and would operate the propane system on only the coldest days, I likely would displace more propane and would have greater annual energy cost savings; much depends on electricity and propane prices. See Note.

 

However, those annual energy cost savings would be overwhelmed by the annual amortizing cost, i.e., I would still be losing money, if amortizing were considered.

 

NOTE: I likely would need 3 units at 18,000 Btu/h, at a lesser turnkey capital cost. Their output, very-inefficiently produced, would be about 27,000 Btu/h at -10F, the Vermont HVAC design temperature.

 

NOTE: VT-Department of Public Service found, after a survey of 77 HPs installed in Vermont houses (turnkey cost for a one-head HP system is about $4,500; almost all houses had just one HP), the annual energy cost savings were, on average, $200, but the maintenance and annual amortizing costs would turn that gain into a loss of at least $200, i.e., on average, these houses were unsuitable for HPs, and the owners were losing money.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-savings-of-air-sou...

 

BTW, all of the above (minimal annual CO2 reduction and meager annual energy savings) has been widely known for at least a decade, and yet, RE folks, in and out of government, keep on hyping air source HPs in cold climates.

Comment by Willem Post on July 16, 2021 at 6:08pm

Energy Losses of Large-Scale Battery Systems

 

1) The 18 losses of a battery system, including thermal management, monitoring and control, total about 20%, excluding transformer losses. See note

Open URL and click on “View Open Manuscript”

See figures 3, 4 and 17 of article.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261917315696

 

2) Per EIA, grid-scale battery efficiency is about 80%, AC to AC basis, excluding transformer losses. See note.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46756

 

NOTE: Usually, electricity from a distribution grid has to pass through a step-down transformer, about a 1% loss, to reduce the voltage to that of the battery, then through the battery, then via a step-up transformer, about a 1% loss, to the distribution grid, for an overall efficiency of 78%.

 

EV Charging Losses

 

Electric vehicle charging has losses of about 16% in summer, about 18% in winter, from wall outlet, as AC, to a charge inside the battery, as DC. There are additional losses for the charged electricity to go from the battery to the wheels, plus losses for operating the vehicle, such as battery cooling/heating, cabin cooling/heating, heated seats, music, instrumentation, etc.

 

This article has four real-world examples of EV charging losses. See part 3 of article

POOR ECONOMICS AND MINIMAL CO2 REDUCTION OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES IN NEW ENGLAND

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/poor-economics-of-elec...

Comment by Willem Post on July 16, 2021 at 6:07pm

Future Build-outs of Offshore Wind Turbine Systems

 

- MA, RI, and CT are planning to have 8460, 880, and 4160 MW, respectively, a total of 13,500 MW of offshore wind by 2035, much greater than the above 1600 MW.

- If the same simulation were made for 13,500 MW of wind turbines, the up/down spikes would be about 10,000 MW

- The existing CCGT plants would be inadequate to counteract them, i.e., output curtailments would be required.

- The 2035 date has a ring of urgency to it, but likely would be unattainable in the real world. See page 13 of NE-pool URL

 

It would take at least 20 years to build out 13,500 MW wind turbines off the coast of New England, plus large-scale solar systems to reduce the NE grid CO2/kWh by about 30%

 

With that much wind and solar, the NE grid would become very unstable. The NE grid would need:

 

1) Curtailments of wind output, kWh, on windy days

2) Curtailments of solar output bulges on sunny days

2) Major connections to the Canadian grid

3) Grid-scale batteries, with a capacity of 3 to 4 TWh; turnkey capital cost about $1.5 to $2 TRILLION, at $500/kWh, delivered as AC

 

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2020/02/2020_reo.pdf

https://nepool.com/uploads/NPC_20200305_Composite4.pdf

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/reality-check-regardin...

 

NOTE: Nearby countries import German overflow electricity, when it is windy and sunny, at low grid prices (because of a German surplus), and export to Germany, when it is not windy and not sunny, at high grid prices (because of a German shortage). 

The Netherlands is one of the major beneficiaries.

German households get to “enjoy” the highest electric rates in Europe, about 2.5 times as high as the US

Denmark, another wind country, is second!

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/08/germanys-windexitold-wind-tu...

 

Maine Offshore Wind Turbine Systems are Dead

 

The ocean waters near Maine are deep. Almost all offshore wind turbines would need to be floating units, anchored at the seafloor with at least 3 long cables.

The 700-ft tall wind turbines would need to be located at least 25 miles from any inhabited islands, to reduce the visuals, especially with strobe lights, 24/7/365

The wind turbines would be far from major electricity demand centers, such as Montreal and Boston.

Transmission systems would be required to connect the wind turbines to demand centers

All that would make the cost of electricity produced by these wind turbines more expensive than those south of MVI.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/deep-water-floating-off...

 

Maine is Desperate to Stay in the Wind Turbine Business

 

Maine wind/solar bureaucrats likely are in active discussions with stakeholders to add 751 MW of onshore wind turbines.

Maine wind/solar bureaucrats are not in active discussions with stakeholders to add offshore wind turbines, as shown by the interconnection proposals on page 13 of URL

https://nepool.com/uploads/NPC_20200305_Composite4.pdf

Comment by Willem Post on July 16, 2021 at 6:05pm

NOTE:

Dear Mr. Greg Kesich, Editor Portland Press Herald

 

(Mr. Greg suggested I write an op-ed regarding the referenced PPH article, so here it is.)

 

This op-ed is in reference to an article on floating wind turbines off the coast of Maine in the Portland Press Herald, dated 20 May 2019.

https://www.pressherald.com/2019/05/20/our-view-blown-off-course-ma...

 

The article states, Statoil had proposed a $120 million demonstration project for two 6 MW Hywind turbines ($10,000/kW) off Boothbay Harbor, but that Governor Page had rejected it. As you recall, his main reason was the higher electricity prices Joe and Jane Worker/Ratepayer would have to pay for 20 years.

 

The article states, Statoil instead took its project to Scotland, where it has invested more than $200 million for five 6 MW Hywind turbines. After some checking, the actual turnkey cost turned out to be $263 million.

 

Scotland got the turbines at $8,767/kW in 2017, but Maine would have gotten the same turbines at $10,000/kW.

 

The article states, “.....and given that country (Scotland) a head start on establishing itself as developer, manufacturer and exporter of offshore technology. Such potential was recognized by the wind energy task force, which was created in 2008 by Gov. John Baldacci and released its findings in December 2009.”

 

That statement is highly naïve and unrealistic. Norway has invested billions of dollars in infrastructures to develop specialized facilities and seagoing ships for shallow-water and deep-water wind turbines during the past 10 - 15 years. Norway has absolutely no intention of establishing Scotland and Maine as competitors.

 

The Scotland/UK actual contributions to the project were:

 

1) Scotland making some parts that were shipped to Norway for assembly

2) Scotland providing the site 18 miles from shore to minimize visual impacts from shore.

3) The UK providing a subsidy of 18.5 c/kWh, plus Statoil selling electricity at about 6.5 c/kWh on the wholesale market, for a total wholesale cost of 25 c/kWh for 20 years. This compares with New England wholesale prices averaging about 5 c/kWh since 2008.

4) The Scotland people paying higher prices/kWh for low-value, variable/intermittent electricity for 20 years that requires the services of other generators for peaking, filling in and balancing year-round. Statoil had to provide a 1.0 MWh li-ion battery system, at a capital cost of about $700,000, to help smooth the flow of the variable electricity from Hywind to minimize disturbances of the Scotland grid.

 

NOTE: If Maine government would have insisted Statoil would build significant infrastructure in Portland, ME, or elsewhere in Maine, Statoil, if willing to do so, would merely have increased the cost of the electricity, c/kWh, to cover its additional costs.

 

NOTE: Massachusetts has signed contracts for 800 MW of offshore wind turbines south of Martha’s Vineyard. If the state government would have insisted the consortium of European companies would build significant infrastructure in New Bedford, MA, or elsewhere in Massachusetts, the consortium, if willing to do so, would merely have increased the cost of the electricity, c/kWh, to cover its additional costs. However, Governor Baker insisted on lowest electricity cost, as that would benefit all of Massachusetts, not just New Bedford, etc. Counting votes is important. See URL.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/iso-ne-study-of-1600-mw...

 

NOTE:

School Students Playing with Floating Wind Turbines

 

The main objective with floating wind turbines is to isolate the wind turbine from any wave action, including 30 - 40 ft waves. That can only be done with a long, submerged extension of the wind turbine mast, with a heavy weight inside the bottom of the extension (ballast) to keep the wind turbine steady and upright.

 

Dr. Habib Dagher, Executive Director of the Advanced Structures & Composites Center, should have watched the youtube video, and then given proper instructions to teachers all over Maine, so those teachers could have educated these students regarding the physical requirements, to ensure these students would not waste their valuable time and money building inappropriate models. See URLs and watch both videos.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmkA6hbJ_j8

https://www.wabi.tv/content/news/Students-compete-to-build-most-sta...

Comment by Willem Post on July 16, 2021 at 6:04pm

DEEP-WATER FLOATING OFFSHORE WIND TURBINES IN MAINE

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/deep-water-floating-off...

The Norwegians have about 60 years of experience building and servicing oil/gas rigs and laying undersea electric cables, gas lines and oil lines all over the world.

 

They have invested billions of dollars in specialized deep-water, Norwegian harbors and facilities for assembly of oil/gas rigs and invested in specialized sea-going heavy lifters, and specialized sea-going tugboats to tow the oil/gas rigs from Norwegian building sites to oil/gas production sites. The heavy lifters and other ships perform services all over the world.

 

Norway companies want to expand their business by building and servicing and providing spare parts for floating wind turbines for deep-water conditions all over the world

 

NOTE: Norwegians advocating expensive floating wind turbines that depend on the randomness of wind and produce high-cost, variable, intermittent electricity for other people, such as Jane and Joe Worker/Ratepayer, is highly hypocritical, because the Norwegians get 98% of their electricity from their own hydro plants, which produce low-cost, steady electricity (not variable, not intermittent). The Danes advocating wind turbines and boasting about their high percent of wind on their grid is similarly hypocritical, because the Danes have been increasingly using the storage reservoirs of Norway’s hydro plants for decades.

 

First Experimental Floating Wind Turbine in Norway

 

Equinor (formerly Statoil, a Norwegian government controlled company) launched the world's first operational deep-water, floating large-capacity wind turbine in 2009. The turbine trade name is “Hywind”.

 

The wind turbine consists of a 120 m (390 ft) tall tower, above the sea water level, and a 60 m (195 ft) submerged extension below the sea water level, with a heavy weight at the bottom to keep the wind turbine steady and upright, even with very high waves and strong wind conditions. The design was tested and perfected under storm and wind conditions simulated in a laboratory.

 

The 2.3 MW wind turbine is mounted on top of the tower. It was fully assembled in a deep-water harbor near Stavanger, Norway.

 

It was towed to a site 10 km (6.2 mi) offshore into the Amoy Fjord in 220 m (720 ft) deep water, near Stavanger, Norway, on 9 June 2009, for a two-year test run, which turned out to be successful.

 

First Commercial Floating Wind Turbine Plant in Scotland

 

Hywind Scotland project is the world's first commercial wind turbine plant using floating wind turbines.

 

It is located 29 km (EIGHTEEN MILES) off PeterheadScotland to minimize visual impacts from shore.

It has five Hywind floating turbines with a total capacity of 30 MW.

It is operated by Hywind (Scotland) Limited, a joint venture of Equinor, Norway (75%) and Masdar, Kuwait (25%).

 

In 2015, Equinor received permission to install 5 Hywind turbines in Scotland.  

 

Manufacturing started in 2016 in Spain (wind turbine, rotor), Norway (tower, underwater base, assembly), and Scotland (various parts)

The turnkey capital cost was $263 million for five 6 MW turbines, or $8,767/kW.

They were designed to float on the surface, with about 180 m (600 ft) above the sea water level and 80 m (265 ft) submerged below the seawater level.

Total steel weight is about 2300 metric ton, total ballasted weight is about 20,000 metric ton.

Heavy weights in the bottom of the submerged parts serve to keep them steady and upright.

 

The turbines were assembled at Stord in Norway in the summer of 2017, using the specialized Saipem 7000 floating crane, and then towed to the north of Scotland by sea-going tugboats.

Make sure to see the videos showing the crane assembling the entire wind turbine.

Nothing like that exists in Maine, or in the rest of New England.

That means offshore wind turbine assembly and servicing would largely be performed by foreign companies, which already have built the infrastructures and other facilities during the past 25 years.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUlfvXaISvc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmkA6hbJ_j8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQVU7UaMuck

 

The huge, sea-going, specialized, crane (14,000-metric ton lifting capacity) is required for partial assembly on land and final assembly in an area close to shore with a very deep harbor, before towing, fully assembled, to the site.

 

The finished turbines were towed to Peterhead, Scotland.  

Three  cup anchors hold each turbine in place.

About 2400 meter of chain is required, weighing 400 metric ton, for each turbine.

The Hywind Scotland project was commissioned in October 2017.

 

Hywind Wind Turbines for Demonstration Purposes in Maine

 

Hannah Pingree and other Maine's wind bureaucrats in state government are engaging in mindless prattle, eager to do the bidding of various multi-millionaires and foreign companies that may be providing some wining/dining boondoggle trips to “view the Hywind turbines” in Norway and Scotland.

 

The turnkey cost of those two Hywind turbines would be about $10,000 per kW, versus NE ridgeline wind at $2,000/kW, and regular offshore, south of Martha’s Vineyard, at $4,000/kW.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/iso-ne-study-of-1600-mw...

 

That would be at about $120 million for a two 6 MW Hywind wind turbines, plus whatever facilities would need to be built in Maine to support the project.

 

The turnkey capital cost of the wind turbine plant in Maine would be much higher, because Maine does not have the experience of the Norwegians and the specialized equipment and specialized ships, and other facilities. It would be very costly to build those facilities and ships in Maine, or elsewhere.

 

600-ft Tall Hywind Turbines Highly Visible From Mohegan Island, Plus Infrasound

 

The 600-ft tall Hywind wind turbines would be highly visible from Mohegan Island, if they were located TWO MILES east of the island.

 

At that distance, the problem would not be just cyclical, audible noises keeping people awake, but also low frequency infrasound, which can travel many miles, and passes through walls of houses, and can be felt but not heard, and has been shown to have adverse health impacts on people and animals.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-turbine-noise-adve...

 

The FAA-required aviation beacons would be clearly visible during nighttime. BTW, they would need to be located about 15 - 20 miles away from Mohegan Island to be unobtrusive to the Islanders.

 

Here is a research report of daytime and nighttime visibility of wind turbines that are about 3 to 4 MW and about 500 ft tall. See URL with photos.

http://visualimpact.anl.gov/offshorevitd/docs/OffshoreVITD.pdf

 

“Study objectives included identifying the maximum distances the facilities could be seen in both daytime and nighttime views and assessing the effect of distance on visual contrasts associated with the facilities. Results showed that small to moderately sized facilities were visible to the unaided eye at distances greater than 42 km [26 miles (mi)], with turbine blade movement visible up to 39 km (24 mi). At night, aerial hazard navigation lighting was visible at distances greater than 39 km (24 mi). The observed wind facilities were judged to be a major focus of visual attention at distances up to 16 km (10 mi), were noticeable to casual observers at distances of almost 29 km (18 mi), and were visible with extended or concentrated viewing at distances beyond 40 km (25 mi).”

 

One has to feel sorry for all the residents of Mohegan Island, but the bureaucrats in Augusta, Maine, do not care about that, because there are not enough votes to stop them. Those bureaucrats are hell-bent to use federal and state grants, subsidies, taxpayer and ratepayer money of already-struggling Joe and Jane Worker to save the world, and to enrich a host of multi-millionaires seeking tax shelters. See Appendix.

 

Some Questions

 

Who are these Aqua Ventus multi-millionaire owners pushing for this expensive project?

How much would be the subsidies?

What would be the energy cost/kWh?

How long would the project last before it would have to be repaired?

How would it be repaired?

Would any special ships, facilities be required?

Does Maine have the required, at least 100-meter, deep-water port?

Is anyone looking at the entire picture on an A to Z basis, or are Maine bureaucrats just dreaming/prattling about castles in Spain?

Does anyone think the Norwegians would not want to make money to maintain/service and provide spare parts for their Hywind wind turbines?

 

Extremely Adverse Impact on CMP Electric Rates

 

LePage’s energy director, Steven McGrath, has focused exclusively on the cost of electricity from the demonstration project.

 

The rate is at least FOUR TIMES above wholesale market value, reflecting the custom design and experimental nature of the platforms.

 

It would start at 23 cents per kilowatt-hour in the first year, escalating at 2.5% per year to 35 cents after 20 years.

 

The PUC estimates it would add up to $208 million over the term, or about $10.5 million a year from Central Maine Power ratepayers. Maine Aqua Ventus had calculated the extra cost would add 73 cents a month to the average household electric bill, in the first year of operation, more thereafter..

  

That is a total rip-off, because Massachusetts pays only an average of 8 - 9 c/kWh over the life of the project.

Main bureaucrats need to learn from Governor Baker.

 

NOTE: The above prices should be compared with NE wholesale prices, which have been about 5 c/kWh since 2008, courtesy of abundant, domestic, low-cost, low-CO2 electricity from gas at about 5 c/kWh, and low-cost, near CO2-free electricity from nuclear at about 4.5 - 5.0 c/kWh.

 

This project is insanity on STEROIDS.

 

One has to feel sorry for the already-struggling Joe and Jane Workers in Maine who will ultimately pay for all this.

https://www.pressherald.com/2018/04/01/effort-to-build-offshore-win...

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/

 

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

 

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT

******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********

(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

© 2021   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service