Proposed Long Island Offshore Wind Farm 'Terminated'

<p>It will eventually be an economical advantage to do the wind project when the price of fuel goes up. </p><p>&nbsp;boB </p>

I think it comes out to a 112%&nbsp; premium.

<p>Am I reading this correctly?&nbsp; Is this only as 12% increase as a &quot;green premium&quot;?&nbsp;&nbsp; I would think that any small increase in fuel costs for the gas powered plant&nbsp; would make the green power cheaper.</p><p>Thanks</p><p>John&nbsp; C. Briggs&nbsp;</p>

It's a shame we don't have a formula to calculate the cost of environmental&nbsp; degradation, reliance on foreign sources of energy, etc. which might go part of the way to validating green power projects.

<p>Tom Tom Tom,</p><p>Looks like I struck a nerve. You are correct, the 2 projects are seperate.</p><p>However, If you take LIPA's open and honest report, apply the scale to the 130 Turbine Cape Wind project, it would put Cape Wind at over $2 billion. Please note I did not do that, I actually gave Cape Wind the benefit of the doubt at $1.4 billion considering it would not be built until 2012.</p><p>The next difference between the 2 projects bodes even worse for Cape Wind. LIPA's electric rates are 30% higher than those paid here in Massachusetts.</p><p>So, if&nbsp;LIPA can not survive at half the cost, when the electric rates are 30% higher,&nbsp; How could you possibly think that Cape Wind will survive the economics?</p><p>5 times the cost of conventional rates!!&nbsp; As I stated before, the only reason this project has not been killed is because the developer is withholding the true economics and cost to the rate payers.</p><p>&nbsp;Tom, Lets see the numbers!! Until then, You and Cape Wind are blowing nothing but a lot of hot air!!</p>

<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: Verdana">Cliff, Cliff, Cliff... </span></p><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: Verdana"></span>&nbsp; <p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: Verdana">Cape</span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: Verdana"> Wind</span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: Verdana"> is a completely separate and unrelated site, from the LIPA site. Your association of 'the end of the road for Cape Wind'&nbsp;from this article or this report&nbsp;is just inappropriate. The original article doesn't mention Cape Wind. Cape Wind isn't mentioned in the LIPA report (link found in original article). Associations of the two projects might seem logical to some due to approximate geographical locations (albeit about 200 miles distance between them) but those associations quickly ignore the significant facts and factors, unique to each proposed site. That's why it's taken about 3 years to determine that this unique FPLE proposal for the LIPA RFP is probably not economically feasible. The existing FPLE proposal for the LIPA site will likely will get shut down next month. No mention of the Cape. </span></p><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: Verdana"></span>&nbsp; <p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: Verdana">The factors of the Pace report for LIPA&nbsp;(link found in the original article,&nbsp; <a href="http://www.lipower.org/newscenter/pr/2007/pace_wind.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0143a7">Assessment of Offshore Wind Power Resources</span></a>)&nbsp;present a good, reasonable, factual&nbsp;case for not proceeding based on a limited set of existing factors, as presented by the FPLE response to the RFP for this potential site. </span></p><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: Verdana"></span>&nbsp; <p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: Verdana">That same report also highlights a few factors that, in hindsight, we might all&nbsp;recognize as&nbsp;'well, I told you so' as there are potential scenarios identified that would indeed make it absolutely worthwhile to proceed (or have proceeded) with this project... e.g., if gas price triples in the next 20 years, that horrible 'green premium' goes from sky high to zero. And then, things like that $500 per mW premium for using GE turbines... what's up with that? Hey, it's a factor in this case; we might not understand 'why' but, well, it exists in this specific case. THESE are facts for LIPA that smart people use to make good and appropriate decisions. Nothing to do with the Cape Power situation, Cliff. </span></p><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: Verdana"></span>&nbsp;<span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: Verdana">By the way, where did that little article you cited come from, anyway? Funny, there's <u>no substantiated author</u> or <u>source</u> of that information... And that sensational <u>byline</u> about Cape Wind... oh, yeah, it must be right, it's in </span><strong><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: Verdana">bold type</span></strong><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: Verdana">! Why not identify that article, author, origins and substantiated facts of your writings... unless you're just gonna point us to your own anti-wind blog, in the end, anyway...</span> <p>&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>Dear Bill,</strong></p><p><strong>The fact that you use the national enquire styled book &quot;Cape Wind&quot; as a reference explains why you have such a poor understanding of the opposition to the Cape Wind industrial plant.</strong></p><p><strong>The fact that you do not understand the huge differnce between the cost of land based and offshore wind is further evidence of your lack of knowledge on the subject.</strong></p><p><strong>I suggest you read the above attached LIPA report. It has some great info.&nbsp; If that does not satisfy your quest for knowledge, I sugeest </strong><a href="http://www.windstop.org/" target="_blank"><strong>www.windstop.org</strong></a><strong> for the real scoop on the Cape Wind project.</strong></p>

<p><strong>Perhaps a better use of subsidies would be to give the existing polluting plants a tax incentive to refit to&nbsp;new clean technologies that are consistant and dependable. What good&nbsp;are all these renewables if we do not correct the true source of the pollution.&nbsp;</strong></p><p><strong>&nbsp;For example, here on Cape Cod, our power about 33% is from an oil fired power plant. The majority of our electricity, about 67% comes from the Plymouth Nuclear Power plant.&nbsp; If the Cape Wind project were to be built, it is believed that the oil fired fuel plant would have to run at a higher output to be able to be the back up power for the intermittent power from the wind farm.</strong></p><p><strong>If this is the case, what is the sense in making the oil fired plant operate at a higher capacity? How does this clean our air? It has been estimated that the Cape Wind project will be north of $1.4 billion by the year 2012.&nbsp; It has been estimated that it would cost about $700 million to refit the canal plant. Wouldn't it make more sense to give a tax incentive or subsidy to the owner of that plant to encourage the retrofitting to a cleaner technology?</strong></p><p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>If you really want to understand the opposition to wind, read &quot;Cape Wind&quot;.&nbsp;It is not favorable to&nbsp;certain liberal politicians, whom we greenies tend to rely on to support clean energy.</p><p>Wind is too expensive? Then why did my cost per kWh drop when I went to 100% wind here in MN, where about 70% of our power comes from coal?</p><p>Mr. Carroll complains about taxpayers subsidizing renewables, and then totally ignores how much we subsidize big oil and coal through their tax breaks and taxpayer support of things like &quot;clean coal&quot; research and the military costs of protecting crude oil supply lines. Please stop insulting our intelligence with such &quot;facts&quot; and save them for the idiots who watch Fox.</p>

<p>Has anyone considered the likely cost per MWH of generating electricity with high-altitude tethered generators?&nbsp; If the wind turbine is put up where the wind is, the wind variability factor goes way down and the capacity factor goes up.&nbsp; As the price of fossil fuels creeps upward, we will find the economics of wind power becoming more attractive.</p><p>High-altitude generation&nbsp;has yet to be demonstrated and proved economical, but we should not dismiss wind power yet.&nbsp; I understand that Magenn Power (Ottawa, Ontario, and San Francisco, California) is presently looking for investors for its helium-and-Magnus-effect rotating balloon generator.</p><p>I expect to attend the Wind Energy Conference at Michigan State University in East Lansing on September 10-11.&nbsp; Will any of you be there?&nbsp; We could compare notes.&nbsp; No doubt the cancellation of the Jones Beach project will be a hot topic of discussion.</p><p>Vince in Grand Rapids</p>

<p>Talk of doing without subsidies for renewables is foolish, when oil and coal have huge subsidies, in the form of defense spending, and extremely generous tax breaks.</p><p>Renewables should get at least as much subsidization as the depletable fuels.</p><p>Further, oil companies and coal companies (and nuclear) should bear the distributed costs to our environment, our health&nbsp;and our balance of payments.</p><p>When those costs and subsidies are factored in, I'll bet wind and solar come out looking pretty cheap.</p>

<p>The projected levelized costs for off-shore wind-power of $291/Mwh is very high for wind. That's about what PV is going for. The main reason PV power is economic is because PV's's peak output&nbsp;fairly reliably matches the utilities' summer afternoon peak demand (at least out here in the West). Windpower can be a lot more random, reducing its average&nbsp; per-Mwh value. </p><p>To give a picture of what land-based windpower is selling for, our local city-owned electric utlity recently signed a long-term agreement to purchase wind-power from a private windfarm in the Northwest for about $100/Mwh. </p>

<p><strong>Ben,</strong></p><p><strong>The Cape Wind project has a lot more costs than the electric rates being estimated to be twice what we pay now.&nbsp; It is going to displace hundreds of fisherman, endanger both ship and plane navigation, and put 40,000 gallons of transformer oil in the middle of our fishing grounds just off our beaches.</strong></p><p><strong>It is a shame that our community has been so badly torn up by a project where the developer probably knows it will never be built.&nbsp; The least he could do is give us the real economics and disclose what the true costs to our ratepayers will be.</strong></p><p><strong>He won't even disclose the wind data so that we can check it against the times of demand.</strong></p><p><strong>I used to wonder what he is hiding? After seeing the real numbers on LIPA, now we know.</strong></p>

<p>Sure is foolish to can a project like this for such a small premium which, as mentioned, could be a value in the future.</p><p>The quote in paragraph 6 is interesting... how do government incentives lower costs?&nbsp; Things that make you go hhmmmm...</p><p>Let's let renewable energy stand on its own two feet... and keep the government out.&nbsp; Let's not take a $2.50/mo green premium and turn it in to a $5/mo tax increase.</p>

<p><strong>I believe that the Cape Wind project will be the next to fall. After seeing the real numbers on LIPA, I now understand why the Cape Wind developer refuses to disclose the economics and true cost to rate payers of the proposed 24 square mile wind project which is opposed off Cape Cod.</strong></p><p><strong>I found this news release very telling.</strong></p><font size="4"><p align="center"><strong>Rising Ratepayer Costs Sink Long Island Offshore Wind Project </strong></p><p align="center"><strong>Calls Cape Wind Project into Question </strong></p></font><font face="Times New Roman,Times New Roman" size="3"><p align="left">The Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) yesterday decided to terminate a controversial project to install 40 wind turbines off the coast of Jones Beach because of a recent report showing the costs of this $700 million project to be significantly higher than traditional forms of energy generation. While earlier estimates from LIPA consultants estimated energy from the wind development would cost between 6 and 9 cents per kilowatt hour, well above the 4.5-cent average LIPA has paid, recent analysis by Dowling College's Long Island Economic and Social Policy Institute showed the cost would approach 19 cents in the latter years of the contract. </p><p align="left">While wind may be free, this development demonstrates that turning it into electricity is more expensive than most conventional generation sources because of high capital costs, and ultimately it is the consumer that covers those costs. When LIPA first announced its plan, it estimated a cost of between $150 million and $200 million, but current estimates are nearly $700 million. Similarly, while Cape Wind initially estimated $700 million to build their 130 turbines, recent estimates are over $1 billion and likely far higher given LIPA&rsquo;s $700 million price tag for 40 turbines. </p><p align="left">In other recent developments, plans to build an even larger 500 MW wind project in Texas were called off because the multibillion-dollar project didn't make economic sense according to the developer. While electricity prices are higher in MA and NY than they are in TX, they were still not high enough to make the proposed project economically viable. </p><p align="left">An August 2007 report by New England&rsquo;s Independent System Operator confirmed that wind power has high capital costs and would be expensive to build. It goes on to say that to fill the gap between the revenue these projects would receive in the New England wholesale market and the revenue they need, they would depend on additional sources of revenue including tax credits, renewable energy certificates, and long term purchased power agreements. On top of rates New England residents would pay to Cape Wind for their electricity, federal and state taxpayers would be paying over $1.3 billion in tax credits and subsidies over the life of this project. </p><p>While Cape Wind once claimed their project would save $25 million annually, or 10 cents per month per New England household, they have failed to disclose their project&rsquo;s overall financials. Given that the escalating costs of this project would ultimately be borne by New England ratepayers and taxpayers, Cape Wind should fully disclose the financial information necessary to substantiate the project&rsquo;s viability and the price residents would pay for this expensive source of electricity generation. The New England public needs full disclosure to decide whether the Cape Wind project makes sense or is no more than an economic boondoggle for the developer as the LIPA project has been described. </p></font>

<p>I guess I'm getting screwed.&nbsp; I pay about $20-30/month &quot;green premium&quot; to purchase 100% wind generated power as opposed to the coal generated providers.</p><p>I'd gladly take a&nbsp;$2.50/month &quot;green premium&quot;.</p>

OOPS! I goofed.&nbsp; 7 cents/KwH for wind is presently more costly than Washington Power's existing hydro at less than 3 cents/KwH.&nbsp; If hydro has potential head for it. Otherwise, install wind. Grid power below 10c/KwH is a gold mine.&nbsp; Youse guys will all&nbsp;take stock in that. Yall listen up, yah here.

<p>It's a small world. If FPL needs to kill a project, the quote gets revised upwards to where no environmental impact matters. FPL could not win installing wind to&nbsp;overspeed on political hot air.&nbsp; The original quote was more realistic.</p><p>No power cost less than wind in windy locations.&nbsp;Wind fuel has very small cost most notably fuel to stabalize or match supply with demand. Wind always wins&nbsp;in&nbsp;locations beyond the reach of hot aired politicians and&nbsp;NIMBY tree huggers.</p>

<p>Hey, I get my info from experience, not from some website or&nbsp;press release, Cliff.</p><p>I live and fish in Mass. I fish&nbsp;from a boat, I fish in Nantucket Sound from the Vineyard, and I can tell you, underwater structures like wind towers are good for fishing. Ever fish around an oil rig in the Gulf? Like an oasis in the desert, it is. If the few&nbsp;commercial guys who actually want to fish in this area can't do so as well, that'll also be good for fishing. It'll give the overexploited stocks a defacto reserve to let them grow another inch or two before the commercial guys scoop them up on the other side. </p><p>Please, <strong>stop shouting.</strong></p>

<p><strong>Erik,<br />I&nbsp;have no idea where you get your info.&nbsp; I get mine from talking to the Massachusetts Fisherman's Partnership.&nbsp; The men that have been fishing those waters for their entire life. Jim Gordan, the CEO of Cape Wind recently stated that the wind farm will create about 35 year round jobs, Big Deal! That is no trade off for shutting down the richest fishing grounds in the area.</strong></p><p><strong>P.S. I could care less what politicians have to say about this, I live here, I use these waters, and I do believe that Nantucket Sound is the economic engine of the Cape and Islands tourist based economy. Who the hell wants to come here to look at a 24 sq mi, 43 story industrial&nbsp;STEEL FOREST?&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p>Cliff:&nbsp;</p><p>Please don't say about Cape Wind that &quot;it is going to displace hundreds of fisherman&quot; b/c it just isn't so. That statement is equivalent to RF Kennedy claiming that Nantucket Sound is the &quot;economic generator of New England.&quot;</p>