backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 158 comment(s) - last by dever.. on Jun 27 at 1:07 PM

Delaware's windy coast is an ideal location for the new wind farm.  (Source: Bluewater Wind)

Bluewater Wind, which currently operates an offshore plant in Denmark is building a massive new $1.6B dollar wind farm off Delaware's coast.  (Source: Bluewater Wind)
In the quest to make wind power less obtrusive, some companies are deploying their products in creative new ways.

The push for wind power is gaining almost as much momentum as the solar power push.  The key challenge to wind power is location.  While some efforts, such as billionaire T. Boone Picken's new wind farm merely look to build on sparsely populated areas, others have looked to place mini windmills on buildings or elsewhere.

Now one Delaware utility company is fostering a bold new idea to solve wind power location complaints for sea-bordering states -- put the turbines off shore.  On Monday, Delmarva Power, a major Delaware utility, announced that it was entering into a contract with Bluewater Wind to produce the nation's first offshore wind farm.

According to Bluewater spokesman Jim Lanard, once installed there will be 150 turbines in total.  Cumulatively they will provide 16 percent of the utility's power output.  The turbines will be securely anchored dozens of miles off Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.

However, Bluewater isn't stopping there.  Delmarva will only use approximately half the projected generating capacity of the farm.  The remainder of the new wind farm's juice will be sold off to other utilities. 

The price tag on this incredible adventure is a cool $1.6B USD.

Construction will begin immediately pending regulatory inspection and approval.  This may become a lengthy process, though.  Bluewater is hoping to push it through as quickly as possible, as it hopes to have the plant operational within four years.

Bluewater has a 25-year contract with Delmarva, which is slated to begin in 2012.  Says Lanard, "[With the wind farm's power] Delmarva Power will be able to light about 50,000 homes a year, every year."

The benefits will be passed on to the consumer, says Lanard, who will be protected against instability in energy costs.  The wind power is sold at a locked in rate per kilowatt hour.

Bluewater brings to the table experience from its successful establishment of an offshore plant in Denmark.  At the Delaware plant, the turbines will rest in 75-feet deep water, and will rise 250 feet above the water line.  Hurricanes should be no problem for them as they are engineered to withstand the brunt of a hurricane.  Each turbine has three blades, 150 feet long a piece.

Only on extremely clear days will the park be visible from shore.  Vacationers travelling to Rehoboth Beach in the summer will rarely see the park.  Says Lanard, "If they can see them at all, the turbine blades would cover about the size of your thumbnail, and the poles would be about the width of a toothpick."

With a lot of excitement floating around this idea, it would not be surprising to see other green-centric states like California and Oregon jumping on the offshore wind-farm trend in coming years.  Bluewater also has pending proposals with utilities and government entities in New York, Rhode Island, and New Jersey as well.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
This is a losing venture
By rninneman on 6/24/2008 5:45:47 PM , Rating: 2
According to the DOE, the average Delaware household spends $80/month on electricity.

$80 x 12 months x 25 years x 50,000 households = $1.2 billion.

Last I checked, that is less than the $1.6 billion invested.

Let me guess, tax dollars will make up the rest.




RE: This is a losing venture
By danrien on 6/24/2008 5:54:33 PM , Rating: 4
you haven't factored in making that money back with less energy needing to generated via conventional oil, coal and gas methods. thus, long term, it should present some savings. also, in nd, the energy companies subsidize the wind farms by giving the customer an option to use "wind energy" for a few cents more a month, so it wouldn't have to be paid for via taxes.


RE: This is a losing venture
By rninneman on 6/24/2008 6:05:13 PM , Rating: 2
Huh? My calculation assumes the energy is completely free. No costs for maintenance etc. (Maybe that is factored in, I don't know because it doesn't specify.) I calculated gross revenue. So, assuming there are no other costs, that would require a 33% rate increase to break even. How happy do you think those DE residents will be when their $80 bill is suddenly over $106?


RE: This is a losing venture
By Oregonian2 on 6/24/2008 6:17:43 PM , Rating: 2
How much do the windmills cost the second year of operation?


RE: This is a losing venture
By hadifa on 6/24/2008 7:13:37 PM , Rating: 4
Second year doesn't count!

By second year it will be under water due to global warming :-(


RE: This is a losing venture
By Carter642 on 6/24/2008 7:19:59 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, the turbines float.

Deleware will be under 50ft of ocean and the wind turbines will be laughing at their former masters.


RE: This is a losing venture
By phxfreddy on 6/24/2008 10:31:23 PM , Rating: 2
Yes coastal liberals take the global warming challenge.....sell me your coastal land that is soon to be underwater for 10% current market value! ... 10% is better than nothing which is what you will get when its underwater!


RE: This is a losing venture
By freaqie on 6/25/2008 4:29:07 AM , Rating: 4
"According to the DOE, the average Delaware household spends $80/month on electricity.

$80 x 12 months x 25 years x 50,000 households = $1.2 billion.

Last I checked, that is less than the $1.6 billion invested.

Let me guess, tax dollars will make up the rest. "

i guess inflation would do the rest. also rising oil prces will drive costs of normal power up.
so green power's prices can rise too,
so in ten years an average house could be sppending 120.
and in 20 years 160 dollars a year.
and if so this farm would make a profit


RE: This is a losing venture
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/25/2008 12:59:07 PM , Rating: 2
well if they did not float... then you have a jacuzzi type of effect....very therapeutic

It's seems like a good idea as long as they don't block shipping, though I'd try for more the 50,000 homes.


RE: This is a losing venture
By ionoxx on 6/25/2008 1:18:00 PM , Rating: 3
Morbo: WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOOD NIGHT!


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/25/2008 1:57:00 PM , Rating: 2
I know one that does....


RE: This is a losing venture
By 67STANG on 6/24/2008 6:57:53 PM , Rating: 2
There is a power-to-cost ratio with this as there are with many things. Offshore turbine installation and maintenance is much more expensive than a land-based installation. These smaller turbines aren't worth it IMHO. I would rather see a few rather large turbines that put out a lot more power.

Clipper Windpower is installing a prototype 7.5MW turbine offshore of the UK and each 1 of these things puts out the smae power as 3 pretty large turbines. Installation and initial cost will be cheaper as there's only 1 to install instead of 3, and maintence will should be reduced too.

What we all have to remember as well is that you don't always get your cake and eat it too as far as cost is concerned. This is renewable engergy, there's more to consider than just monetary matters.


RE: This is a losing venture
By masher2 (blog) on 6/24/2008 7:01:37 PM , Rating: 4
> "What we all have to remember as well is that you don't always get your cake and eat it too as far as cost is concerned"

With nuclear power, you do. A new nuclear reactor in the state would generate far more power, and at a per Kw-h rate more than ten times cheaper than this boondoggle.


RE: This is a losing venture
By augiem on 6/24/2008 8:04:42 PM , Rating: 1
Yay for nuclear fusion! Someday...


RE: This is a losing venture
By BladeVenom on 6/24/2008 8:26:57 PM , Rating: 5
He's talking about fission, and there are already hundreds of them operating successfully today.


RE: This is a losing venture
By 67STANG on 6/24/2008 11:05:06 PM , Rating: 2
Considering each reactor costs at least $6 billion dollars to construct, the price difference isn't as drastic as most would think.

Along with that, until they can effectively reprocess the spent fuel, you're going to have permitting problems with the government...

Another issue is each plant requires ~9,000,000 gallons of water per day for full operation. I suppose unless you built all the plants in Iowa, you'd have a problem. What? Too soon?


RE: This is a losing venture
By masher2 (blog) on 6/24/2008 11:17:34 PM , Rating: 2
> "Considering each reactor costs at least $6 billion dollars to construct, the price difference isn't as drastic as most would think"

It is when a reactor can easily generate 2,000 MWatts or more-- and do so 90% or more of the time. Whereas this wind farm will only generate 200 MWatts, and at a 30% AF, will actually produce only about 1/30 the total amount of power.

As for the water issue, saltwater can be as easily used for cooling as fresh...and since we're talking about a coastal installation, water isn't an issue at all.

Furthermore, nuclear plants built in areas where water shortages exist use closed-loop designs, meaning they recycle the water back through after each cooling cycle. This cuts their water usage down to a tiny fraction of what would otherwise be required. Open-loop designs are only used where water consumption isn't a problem.