ORONO, Maine — The man at the helm of Maine’s push to put 170 floating wind turbines in the Gulf of Maine by 2030 likens that effort to NASA’s space program.
Using that analogy, the wind turbine standing behind the University of Maine’s Offshore Wind Laboratory at the Advanced Structures and Composites Center’s could be compared to Explorer I, the first U.S. satellite launched into space.
That turbine, a one-eighth scale version of the turbines that would be used in the future offshore wind farm, will be floating in the Gulf of Maine next year, likely between April and August.
“We’re here at the beginning of an exciting era that could create a whole new industry in our state,” center Director Habib Dagher said Friday, standing under a 112-foot turbine blade that has been undergoing stress testing at the Offshore Wind Lab in recent months.
The turbine going into the water off Monhegan Island next year will be used to test control systems and sensors that would be used on the full-scale version.
“It basically will be able to sense the environment around it,” Dagher said.
Based on wind speed and direction, the turbine automatically turns and adjusts the angle of its blades to attain the most efficient use of the wind or avoid its full force if it grows too strong. The full-scale versions would be able to do the same thing.
A floating base for the turbine is in the works. Next year, the turbine parts will be taken to Cianbro in Brewer, where the pieces will be assembled and the floating turbine will be towed upright down the Penobscot River to its test site in the Gulf of Maine. Once in place, it will be hooked up to the power grid with an undersea cable, becoming the first grid-connected offshore turbine in the country.
The turbine design is called VolturnUS, a combination of the words volt, turn and U.S., a name that happens to be shared by Volturnus, the Roman god of the east wind.
After testing with the prototype is completed, a pair of 6-megawatt turbines will be installed by 2017 at a site called Aqua Ventus I. By 2020, that would grow to a larger-scale commercial wind farm with 80 turbines in a 4- by 8-mile space 20 miles offshore, over the horizon and neither visible nor audible from shore. By 2030, the goal is to have a full-scale wind farm of around 170 turbines operational and bringing 5 gigawatts of wind energy to Maine’s shore.
“It’s a crawl before you walk, walk before you run approach,” Dagher said.
Some offshore wind energy efforts in Europe, which has been involved in offshore wind since 1991, have struggled, resulting in lofty price tags and high energy costs. Turbines at other offshore wind farms need to have their bases driven into the seafloor, an expensive process. If a turbine needs work, it can be towed back to shore, where repairs will be less costly.
The more cost-effective floating wind farm approach should help keep electricity prices down to about 10 cents per kilowatt hour by 2020, which is competitive with other means of electricity production, Dagher said. Prior to that, the energy will be expensive by comparison.
To put the size of the turbine in perspective: The world’s largest commercial airliner, the Airbus A380 with its 260-foot wingspan, could rest on one blade of the turbine. The diameter of the blades’ rotation will be 500 feet and the distance from water level to the hub at the top of the tower will be about 300, Dagher said.
The Gulf of Maine has some of the strongest, most persistent winds on the East Coast. Every second, 600,000 pounds of wind will travel through the turbine — the equivalent of 264 Toyota Camrys driving through per second — according to Dagher.
More than 30 companies are collaborating on the project, and the UMaine team of students, staff, engineers and communications specialists working on the project is 140 strong on its own. The effort to get 20 gigawatts of offshore wind capability by 2030 could bring as much as $20 billion of private investment to Maine and create thousands of jobs, Dagher has said.
In June, Maine Gov. Paul LePage placed a hold on $40 million in bonds in an attempt to rein in state borrowing. On that list was about $7.3 million in funding for the offshore wind demonstration site. LePage has said the earliest he might consider releasing the funds is 2014.
Dagher said he respects the governor’s fiscal concern and that the composites center continues to court private capital investments to proceed with the project until funds are released.
Members of LePage’s administration have questioned the feasibility of the offshore wind project in the past. Kenneth Fletcher, director of the Governor’s Office of Energy Independence and Security, and James LaBrecque, owner of Flexware Control Technology in Bangor and a technical adviser to LePage, said in 2011 that they felt the energy costs would be significantly higher and that the wind project wouldn’t serve to reduce Maine’s dependence on fossil fuels.
“In my 40 years in the energy arena, I have learned two things: There are no silver bullets, and we’re almost out of blanks,” LaBrecque said at the time.
Tests have been underway since 2011 on a one-fiftieth scale turbine floating in a pool at the Offshore Wind Laboratory that simulates waves and winds. The model has been tested against 150 mph winds and 60-foot waves. Research into the economic, environmental and ecological effects of a floating wind farm have stretched further back.
The group has studied fishing grounds, migratory bird flight paths, shipping patterns and more in order to identify potential future homes for the wind farm that will result in minimal effect to other industries and the environment, accord to Dagher.



How’s the test turbine at UMaine Presque Isle doing?
It’s broken most of the time.
No it is not.
It’s produced 117,157 kWh so far this year.
That is about $11,000 worth of electricity. Not even enough to pay for the interest on the money borrowed to build it. That is enough power for about 17 homes for a year.
actually that’s since August – my bad.
and you do not have a clue about the financing of this project – interest payments?
http://www.umpi.edu/wind/project/funding
lol
The UMPI turbine cost $2,000,000. And counting because no one has added up all the repair costs and problems since it was installed.
The real cost of the project for determining financial ROI is $2,000,000. A loan for $2 million at 3.5% interest for 30 years would have a monthly payment of $8980. Most sources say the expected turbing life is about 20 years so the loan should be for no longer than that. A loan for $2 million at 3.5% interest for 20 years would have a monthly payment of $11,600.
There was no loan – try again.
They borrowed from themselves claiming that the annual savings would pay for the turbine. A loan to yourself is still a loan.
Lets say you pay yourself 0 interest. Foolish, but hey it’s a university. $2,000,000 to be paid back over the 20 year lifetime at 0 interest would be $100,000 a year. With no allowance for repairs, maintenance, etc. The Turbine has been producing maybe $65,000 worth of electricity a year.
Whoops….
I wonder how they explain the accounting for this one. Or how they hide it.
Designs COST money…. I traveled to my Dad’s birthplace in MI… Turbines ALL OVER the flat landscape of Farms… They almost never need repair – like your refrigerator… AND people don’t complain about the view and noise… I walked up to a huge tower and did not hear it until I was 100 yards away…!!! Stop listening to GOP Big Oil supporters…
“They almost never need repair – like your refrigerator”. Your statement is completely untrue. They don’t need repairs all the time like a Fiat, but they certainly aren’t as reliable as your refrigerator. The GE 1.5MW on Mars Hill Mountain have GE recommended maintenance intervals of every 3 months. Oil, bearings, bolts, rotor brake, nacelle batteries, generator brushes all need to be replaced at scheduled intervals. A good document to educate yourself is one that was created for the Los Angeles Water & Power district
http://tinyurl.com/dx3v8zk
That doesn’t even account for when the darn things break down, which could happen at any time!
The warranty on these large turbines is about 10 years; and that’s with all the recommended factory maintenance and replacements..$$$$$. This isn’t some kind of cheap toy. I noted one off of Harpswell has finally been taken down and it was on a windy island.
I went to the UMPI site. The 117,157 is since July 5. The actual number since the END of August is about 69,000 KWH.
It would be wonderful if you actually checked any of your “facts” before posting.
And you wonder why many of us discount most of your rants.
“Money for the project came from campus – not University of Maine System –
reserves, which were built up through more than 20 years of careful
financial stewardship. The University received a $50,000 Voluntary Renewable Resources Fund
grant from the Maine Public Utilities Commission to go toward the
project. The University also received assistance from the Rebuild
America grant program through Efficiency Maine as administered by the
University of Maine System’s Systemwide Services. The grant program paid
for the wind feasibility study and helped with engineering fees.”
Oh awesome! Grants are free money! Glad this wasn’t paid for by taxpayer dollars! I also think it’s amazing that the UMPI Campus was able to save up so much money over 20 years! If I had that much money in my savings account, I’d put up a windmill just like UMPI did, yessir!
Oh I see! So you’re an UMPI employee then? Obviously you’re “in the know”! Great to have you here! So I’ve got some questions, and I’m certain everyone else here does too. The turbine blades didn’t move for several months this summer, and when I called UMPI to inquire why I was told that they were “waiting for parts”. So, since you’re “in the know”, can you tell me exactly how many days the windmill was down this year?
“Obviously you’re “in the know”!
Which is better than not being in the know like the you faith based deniers of reality, why ?
Turbine was made in India…so much for domestic job production….ever order parts from an Indian manufacturer?
In order for companies to re-locate to Maine, there needs to be an industry here and incentives for moving. These things don’t happen by accident — they take time and a well-developed strategy. The industry needs to be built and the businesses need to be courted and offered incentives for coming here instead of another state or country.
Why do you think Maine loses opportunities like this all the time? It’s because we don’t have the packages to put on the table to offer these companies. No cash incentives, no large manufacturing spaces, limited tax breaks, no large/highly-skilled workforce.
Look at the economic development packages other states use — we are severely lacking in what we have to offer.
Barring offshore wind, what’s the other big opportunity for jumpstarting Maine’s economy? This is our chance to create the opportunity for our state — to attract companies to set up engineering and manufacturing bases here. Let’s create some good jobs and generate some clean electricity! We have the opportunity to be GLOBALLY competitive — this doesn’t happen often here.
There is NO OPPORTUNITY here; unless you prefer the luxury of expensive public works projects.
Quebec and N.B. have floods of inexpensive green electricity ready to deliver to Maine at 6 cents/ kWh….so why adopt expensive and problem-some off-shore wind turbines and even more expensive undersea cabling, when the only result is a handful of jobs, skyrocketing energy costs, and a growing need for backup power to make up for losses when the wind stops blowing, esp. during the summer.
One could make an argument that the decline in disposable income among wealthier people led to a decline in boat building and that resulted in layoffs of thousands of people. Up & down the coast are small boat builders with shuttered buildings, Hinckley laid off several hundred people. Replacing them with turbine blade manufacture is highly speculative…unless you can move the blades over highways they become very may have to be fabricated on site or in dry docks.
Economies aren’t ‘jump-started’..that’s politician talk, like how the stimulus would create all these new jobs…and now we find out most of the money went to keep public sector union employees from getting laid off or to speculative businesses like SOLYNDRA and ABOUND SOLAR which left their founders rich, and the employees out of a job.
Maine has plenty of small ‘high tech’ companies, quite content to stay in their niche and expand or contract as the economy dictates. Cater to their needs and expand them as needed.
The test turbine at UMaine (mentioned in above article) is not being used to generate electricity for the campus. The UMPI turbine was meant to.
This turbine is only up temporarily so researchers can test sensors and equipment before it’s mounted to a floating platform off the coast.
Pretty expensive ‘educational tool’ …only 11% of capacity and off line most of the time. Great way to learn about why WIND POWER is a fool’s game….unless you own a piece of FIRST WIND!!
You should contact the folks at UMPI to ask them more about the turbine, directly. I know that a major reason that UMPI installed a turbine was to train students to maintain turbines and to become part of the future workforce.
Keep in mind that the UMPI turbine is being used to generate electricity for the campus (among other things). This turbine is being instrumented for an offshore research program and is not being used to generate electricity long-term. It’s a scale model — different purpose.
wind power does not belong in Maine on of offshore..
Care to articulate? Offshore wind shows great potential for Maine. These floating turbines of the future will be far enough off the coast that people won’t see it or hear it from the coast of Maine.
As mentioned in the article, the University is being very careful to not disturb fishing grounds, migratory bird flight paths, and shipping patterns.
The offshore wind energy resource in the Gulf of Maine is so great that, when fully utilized, would surpass Maine’s energy needs. We can export that additional power (much like we do with other resources – think blueberries, lobster) to other states. This means huge green revenue for Maine.
Why wouldn’t offshore wind belong in Maine?
With grid scale storage perhaps 40 years off, what do you do when the wind stops blowing? This is why the steam engine replaced the windmill ages ago. They just don’t work.
Where do you get the 40 year number from? Have you heard of electric cars? Have you heard of electric thermal storage for heating homes? Do you think the people leading this effort would waste time and money if wind energy wasn’t viable?
No, they would not waste their money and time.. but are quite willing to waste yours and mine. Free money doesn’t go unnoticed.
Grid scale storage systems are already on the market – electric thermal storage systems and water heaters that could use off peak and excess power production.
Electric cars and buses are mobile battery storage systems.
Existing hydro dams could store and use water to balance offshore wind production.
Those are all here today.
Yessah
Go to Europe, look around, and you will see plenty of wind turbines…working and generating clean, local electricity. They have not been replaced. To the contrary, more wind (and solar) farms are installed each day.
I would be proud to live somewhere less dependent on non-renewable energy sources, like natural gas, and with less volatile pricing than foreign oil. Besides climate change and price volatility concerns, Maine has a huge opportunity here to lead the national in this technology development, which could lead to the transformation of our state’s economic landscape.
Why would Mainers want to miss out on this opportunity? We don’t!
And just look at Europe … IT is leading the world economy into the crapper.
Sorry – not in Germany, the UK or Denmark.
And wind power in the EU ***reduces*** the cost of electricity.
http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/ElectricPower/8924258
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/10/czech-factors-idUSL5E8MD9VW20121210
Please try to keep up.
Yessah
Read up on Germany and tell me Europe’s economy is in the crapper. The US would be lucky to be 1/3 as prosperous as Germany!
Without the US Germany and all of Europe would today be a part of the USSR and totally bankrupt. Yes Germany is relativly prosperous but be honest it is the only country in the EU that is and none of them would be able to exist without the US propping them up and protecting them/
If all you want to do is sound cool keep saying dumb things and to some you are very cool.
Germany, Spain, and other European countries have feed in tariff laws which are designed to promote renewable energy technologies. These advanced nations are going full speed toward clean energy.
More financial suffering for the middle class…Europe is cutting back on these subsidies. Norway is 98% hydro powered, Switzerland not much further behind. They’ve been ‘clean’ for a long long time.
Actually the numbers of wind turbines are declining, but the replacements produce more. The back side of wind power in Europe is the emergence of stored hydro and local natural gas electric generation that provides instant on backup to overcome the intermittent production of wind power. This backup capacity is never calculated into the cost of wind power.
Oh please – do some homework.
There are currently more than 238,000 MW of wind capacity deployed worldwide – and it’s growing by over 41,000 MW per year.
By 2016 offshore wind power installations will grow to 5,600 MW per year in China, UK, Denmark and Germany.
Wind power works – lame comments don’t.
Yessah
Pay attention to the details. The actual capacity factor for wind in Maine is about 20%—-one wind farm is getting 25%; so that’s about 1/4th of the 238,000 MW that the user ever sees.
Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) is using fuel cells from Bloom Energy at 24 sites in California and is considering other locations.
“We’ve been watching fuel cells for a long time,” Greg Pool, the retailer’s renewable energy director, said in an interview. An on-site power supply may be valuable during an emergency, such as a hurricane in the Gulf Coast region. With on-site electricity, “the Wal-Mart store may be the only thing open — with ice and water and power — within 100 miles.”
FuelCell runs its factory in Torrington, Connecticut, nonstop, five days a week. By boosting that to seven days a week, as FuelCell plans to do, the company will turn out systems with about 90 megawatts of capacity a year.
“As they accelerate production I’d expect to see profitability late this year or early next year,” predicted Ardour’s Nasdeo.
Falling Production Costs
When combined annual production from Posco (005490) and the Connecticut factory reaches 210 megawatts, FuelCell’s average cost of power production will drop as low as 9 cents a kilowatt- hour, Bishop said.
Walmart is investing in wind power also:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddwoody/2012/08/06/walmart-winds-up-wind-power-in-california/
Fuel cells run on Hydrogen (or natural gas for some). Fuel cost and storage issues for both. Not clean, but cleaner than most and could one day be more economically efficient than gas turbines. Good for certain applications, but not scalable to utility grid. Le’ts be clear, though, it is NOT renewable energy, unless the hydrogen is manufactured with renewable energy.
Chewonki had one of the first solar to hydrogen to fuel cell backup power systems. Been down for a while now….cost about a million dollars to produce enough electricity to run admin. bldg. for 2.5 days. Hydrogen storage takes a lot of space, at 10,000 psi it was risky. Fuel cells kept ‘wearing out’ and were quite expensive to replace,,,They made it work but at a considerable cost!
I’ve always like fuel cells and some island resorts use them; but the fuel must be absolutely pure; and if your producing hydrogen from water, it must be absolutely pure as well.
….and then there are the leaks from an odorless, colorless gas that can explode on contact.
The problem is, none of the power generated by this or any other wind farm will be used here in Maine. As far as I understand and please correct me if I am wrong, the wind generated energy from Maine is sent to the more populated areas of New England. All Maine gets is the less than asthetic presense of the wind farms, noise, some property tax benefits and lease payments to landowners. It should be made mandatory that at least 50% of all wind generated energey must be utilized within the state before any is sent to the grid for consumption out of state.
The solution to the problem you mention is to develop community renewable energy. Both wind and solar should be deployed. If we do this we will stimulate local economies by keeping our energy dollars at home and creating jobs.
Mike – the local energy generation model is promising and should be heavily considered. With that said, renewable energy technology is in its infancy. These technologies need time (and research dollars) to improve overall efficiency and drop down costs of the technology before community-based energy generation is feasible.
Hydro is the ultimate renewable…lasts 100 years, protects against drought and flooding, sustains vibrant watersheds and fisheries, and provides ample recreational opportunities and valuable shoreland.
Wind gives you NOTHING, and takes valuable forest, causes erosion and runoff, and actually prolongs global warming by deforestation.
Before any wind farms were built in Maine, half of our electricity was exported to southern New England.
Did you have any problems with that?
I do have a problem if it increases the rates that Maine consumers have to pay. I do not have a problem with the project in general, I just do not like the idea that it is not doing much to decrease energy cost for the people of Maine.
Mainers don’t use all of the electricity we generated within the state. That’s why we’re able to export it and make revenue for Maine. What’s the problem, there?
Before Jack Wyman created Central Maine Power as an exporter of excess hydro power, paper and other mills gave away their excess power free. Gov. Percival Baxter clashed with Wyman over a large dam…..CMP got the dam but couldn’t export the power, a Pyrrhic victory.
And now that we have a wind farm in Northern Maine, where does that power go? I’ll give you a hint…it’s not to Northern Maine.
Cape Cod wants to buy inexpensive power from Canada and eliminate the costly off shore wind turbines…you have any problem with that?
According to the plan put forth by Dr. Dagher at UMaine, the energy would be used to 1) power the state and 2) export the excess to bring revenue to the state. We don’t eat all the lobsters we catch or all the blueberries we eat.
Beyond the energy that’s generated, these floating platforms and related components could be manufactured here in the state. This means keeping Maine’s young people here and providing good jobs in a variety of fields (marine operations, environmental permitting, structural engineering, electrical engineering, manufacturing, etc.).
I agree with all aspects of the project, cheaper energy ( I don’t think that it will cover all our energy needs, so I don’t know where the excess comes from) and more technology based jobs for the young people of Maine. My only concern is that it seems that most, if not all, wind energy is being exported out of State at this time. I am in the opinion that we need to take care of our energy needs here first. If the people of Maine must endure the unsightly existance of the windmills, they should reap the majority of the cheap energy from them.
The goal for deepwater offshore wind farms is 5+ GW installed in the Gulf of Maine by 2030, more than enough for Maine’s energy needs plus an export opportunity, especially when combined with land-based wind and other energy sources. (Maybe we’ll even be smarter about energy consumption…)
These would be placed 20+ miles off the coast, over the horizon line — would not see them or hear them.
“these floating platforms and related components could be manufactured here in the state.”
And shoes COULD be manufactured here. And cars. And flat screen tv’s. Problem is that with our high energy and transportation costs it just isn’t going to happen.
See my comment above:
“In order for companies to re-locate to Maine, there needs to be an industry here and incentives for moving. These things don’t happen by accident — they take time and a well-developed strategy. The industry needs to be built and the businesses need to be courted and offered incentives for coming here instead of another state or country.
Why do you think Maine loses opportunities like this all the time? It’s because we don’t have the packages to put on the table to offer these companies. No cash incentives, no large manufacturing spaces, limited tax breaks, no large/highly-skilled workforce.
Look at the economic development packages other states use — we are severely lacking in what we have to offer.
Barring offshore wind, what’s the other big opportunity for jumpstarting Maine’s economy? This is our chance to create the opportunity for our state — to attract companies to set up engineering and manufacturing bases here. Let’s create some good jobs and generate some clean electricity! We have the opportunity to be GLOBALLY competitive — this doesn’t happen often here.”
Semloh – energy created enters ISO New England territory. ISO-NE is a non-profit, regional transmission organization created by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to maintain power generation and transmission systems. (Check them out at: http://www.iso-ne.com/index.html)
Electricity generated in Maine enters the ISO-NE pool and is used wherever the load requires it to go.
Offshore wind turbines will be 20+ miles from the coast of Maine – that means no poor view (if you don’t like the look of them, I personally find them to be beautiful), no noise.
Your last idea doesn’t sound bad, but Mainers alone couldn’t use all of the electricity that can be harnessed in the Gulf of Maine. If we mandated that 50% of energy generated in the state must be used in the state, we’d have a massive amount of energy going to waste.
Less expensive to use old tidal mills and their water works to generate power…no new transmission lines, no valuable bottom land taken out of production, no destruction of migrating birds.
Sounds like the WIND FAIRY whispered in your ear last night?
Floating wind turbines are the most expensive way of producing electricity; under sea cables are even more expensive….If that’s what you want THEN PAY FOR IT YOURSELF.
I prefer cheap hydro from Quebec….6 cents/kWh and always there when I need it.
Considering the research is still in progress (meaning, the only floating turbine currently deployed is Statoil’s research turbine) and the cost of energy numbers are currently promising, I’m not sure where you are getting your information — because you certainly are not getting your information from the National Renewable Energy Lab, U.S. Department of Energy, Sandia National Laboratory, the universities around the world involved in this research, the private companies putting up $$$ to further the research, the European Wind Energy Association, and others — all who disagree with your assessment.
The University of Maine’s technology has the opportunity to lower the costs of deepwater offshore wind even further. That’s the thrust of the research program. This technology could revolutionize the offshore wind industry — with Maine leading the way!
Unfortunately, all one has to do is visit Quebec to see the synergistic impact of inexpensive hydropower on a booming economy.
Offshore wind is EXPENSIVE and UNRELIABLE energy boosted by green marketeers who get paid as shills.
Why should BOMBARDIER move to Maine and have to rely on expensive offshore wind energy?
The technology is already developed by the oil & gas industry and some say that once those wind leases are signed the companies who bought them will try and convert them to drilling leases.
Won’t that be swell!
Climate change will make the planet uninhabitable for your great grand children. You don’t have an ounce of common sense. This is a great project that every Mainer should be proud of.
The warming of Maine’s climate is turning us into an agriculture exporter among other things with bumper crops of blueberries, lobster, maple syrup, etc. and newer emerging crops usually grown further south.
Uninhabitable???? Are you mad or just another dumb polar bear who prefers dumps to ice floes?
This is a horrible idea. What if Senator Kerry comes up to Maine on a sailing trip and has to sail around these areas? Do we really want to risk him hurling up his fois graz at the sight of this renewable energy source? Is it worth the risk? Think people, think!
Ummmmm……..isn’t he dead?
I certainly hope not, he has been mentioned as the new Secretary of Defense to replace Leon Panetta.
Offshore and onshore wind power could heat our homes with off-peak electric thermal storage heating systems currently offered by CMP and heat pumps offered by Bangor Hydro,
It could power electric automobiles – already in showrooms.
It could create thousands of jobs.
This is why LePage hates this.
Yessah
Wrong Headline. Should be Test turbine at UMaine could be a glimpse into bankrupting Maine’s household on energy costs.
Based on what – your lack of facts?
When Newton’s laws of motion and Carnot’s second law of thermodynamics are repealed.. let me know. The massive wind farm off Cape Cod came in at 17.7 cents/kwh and that was only because the Mass AG’s office did a slam on NationalGrid’s production cost at 22.2 and wholesale price of 24.2. What is never stated in wind power costs is the cost of a conventional power plant that has to be built for stand-by purposes for when the winds don’t blow at the theoretical maximum .. which is almost 2/3 of the time. There are a few locations that wind will work effectively.. but Maine is not one of them. BTW: Spain just went broke on this hype.. and Germany and Britain are pulling back. But, if you want to do the expensive research for China’s manufacturing plants.. go ahead.
Cape WInd will reduce ISO NE rates by $7.2 billion over 25 years.
Germany and the UK are not “pulling back” – but investing in offshore wind – the only problems they are experiencing are due to shortages of connections to the of grid. Merkle recently signed legislation that fixes that problem.
Spain had a housing bubble that crashed their economy – wind power had nothing to do with that.
Maine’s offshore wind resources are world class – made up stuff doesn’t wash.
Please try to keep up.
Yessah
You’re full of it as usual, regurgating slick talking points.
Even at 20 cents/kWh, a low figure for off shore wind the COST of the energy produced will be over $5.75 billion and $6.9 billion if at the $0.24/kWh now being paid for the Rhode Island offshore wind farm.
Contrast this with the $0.06/kWh being paid HYDRO QUEBEC which is on the verge of flooding most of New England with cheap, green energy on a reliable basis. NSTAR who committed to buy 28% of the energy, would pay about 19 cents per kilowatt hour — more than double the current market price!
The study group used 2009 EIA fuel cost estimates; however using current figures which in dramatically lower costs for both producing and transmitting natural gas electricity diminishes the projected savings considerably.
Assumptions of a $30-$60/ton Federal charge for carbon emissions are overstated.
Producing it is one thing, getting it on shore is very expensive and no where does it say that Cape Wind is absorbing the transmission costs.
Germany is consolidating off shore turbines to reduce the mounting costs of maintenance; yet billions of dollars of off shore wind projects have stalled over the cost of bring the power to on-shore grids.
Do try and keep up using real facts, not those you get from your bath salts.
NY state has priced the electricity from the Plattsburgh wind farm’s at 32 cents/Kwh.
Don’t forget this turbine uses fossil energy to run its controls, sensors, motors. I bet it comes from the gas fired generators on Monhegan or a mainland cable.
Well, its still better then what we have now, a non viable form of energy.
coolfusion21 – a major component of this research project at UMaine is validating floating offshore wind technology and also establishing manufacturing and production methods to make offshore wind cost competitive.
Any new technology is initially expensive, and then becomes cheaper over time. Think about the cost of laptop computers in 1998 versus laptop computers today.
How’s that $100 a barrel oil working for ya?
How does Natural Gas at 3.46/MMBtu grab you? That’s about $19/barrel of refined crude. Get serious, no one anywhere is constructing power generation plants with oil in mind. Oh, BTW – the US has 250 years of natural gas. Angus got this one wrong.. question is what else will he get wrong?
Beat me to it….energy generation is being localized using an ever spreading network of inexpensive natural gas. There is so much natural gas fleet managers are flocking to seminars on converting vehicles to burn CNG. Prices have been cut in half since the beginning of the year, and continue to drop. More and more deposits are being found and coming into production. Pretty soon soon many people will look at crude as a luxury.
Thanks for saying your agree that fossil fuels are not viable, why because they run out!
Or $400 within 10 years…???
You like sending your energy dollars to Exxon? I would rather support clean energy than send $ to corporations that produce pollution.
Because the future of fossil fuels is “lower” costs?
Well out current energy source will run out sooo….. why? because its based on fossil fuels which will run out.
Yep, and if people would just change … communism would work.
Never happening
Is happening
Yessah
Electric thermal storage systems are expensive, actually have a very limited amount of heat storage, and can be a safety hazard.
Heat pumps need power when operating, not just when off peak rates are in effect. They also do not work well when temperatures are really cold just when you need the most heat. And did I mention the outrageous up front cost?
Electric cars are a joke. Especially for a rural state like Maine with our climate. Limited mileage, high up front cost, high maintenance and repair cost, etc. Might work for someone who lives in Bangor or Portland and commutes less than 10 miles to work, doesn’t make many extra trips anywhere, and doesn’t need to haul anything more than a few bags of groceries. I want to know what the mileage is in the winter with the heater on, defrosters on, and the reduced battery capacity when cold. I’ve seen reports from test drivers that claim the heaters are anemic at best. Reminds me of the Volkswagen bugs in the 60’s. You needed an ice scraper for the inside of the windshield. When I hitchhiked in those days and saw a bug coming I stopped until they went by. Walking was warmer than getting a ride in one.
Thousands of jobs. In Spain they lost 2 other jobs for every 1 created for wind.
CMP offers $1500 – $4500 rebates for thermal storage systems – it is cheaper than oil heat.
They are not “safety hazards” – made up stuff doesn’t count.
The heat pumps offered by Bangor Hydro operate down to -13 degrees F. – and they have a $600 rebate.
Electric cars are the future – the joke is on you.
VW Bugs are not the same as 21st Century electric cars – that’s just plain dumb.
Germany is bailing out Greece and is the leader in wind power in the EU.
Spain’s economic woes were the result of a housing bubble – not wind power.
Please try to keep up.
Yessah
Excellent TickleUp….!!!!!
The rebates are paid for with higher electric rates. And you have to pay for it up front. This pretty much limits them to Upper middle class or above income earners. Nothing like more subsidies for the rich.
I looked up specifications on thermal storage units. They pretty much store heat for what the computer software ESTIMATES you will need over the next 24 hours.based on temperature readings. God help you when you have a cold snap and the computer “estimated” you would only need heat based on the previous only chilly weather.
The bricks in the thermal storage units can get as hot as 1400 degrees. Also, the external temperature of the unit can be as high as 180 degrees. Have you ever touched something at 180 degrees? It’s called getting a severe burn. Specifications call for significant clearance around the units.
I looked for specifications on the Mitsubishi heat pumps. The most efficient unit produces an anemic 21,600 BTUs per hour from 47 down to to 5 degrees. Efficiency then drops down to 73% at -5 degrees or about 16,000 BTUs per hour. This is not going to keep much of a house warm. Even a relatively small super insulated one, never mind anything average. And the pure electric resistance heating cuts in for anything lower.
You are right about VW bugs not being the same as 21st Century electric cars. Back then they cost half as much as decent cars. Modern electric cars cost double what an equivalent gas powered car does. And the VW bug could actually go about 300 miles on a fill up. And after a 10 minute stop could go another 300 miles. And the electric car can go maybe 40 miles and then you have to stop for 8 hours or so…. If you can find a place to plug it in….
You friend are blowing smoke. If you are wrapped into the negatives of a technology you will come up with arguments to support your beliefs.
The one overriding issue is climate change. All the technologies you are knocking do not emit carbon into the atmosphere. What value do you place on clean energy? What is the true cost of burning fossil fuels?
Mini split heat pumps can heat a home in a Maine winter. They are space heaters. The 210000BTU unit will heat 1000 to 1200 square feet. Want to heat additional space install a 2nd heater.
A super insulated small house would need 1 heat pump and maybe a pellet stove for the very coldest of days. No contest. Cheap heat.
Heat pumps will make oil obsolete. Electricity produced from wind, solar, and other renewable sources will replace oil,coal, and gas as a source of energy. When? NOW
Find me one place in the world where reducing CO2 emissions has lowered temps…..Start with Europe which met and even surpassed its goals.
Please supply a link for this 210,000 BTU heat pump system. Including information for actual BTU out put at 17, 5, and -13 degrees. The largest system I could find on the Mitsubishi site was good for 54,000 BTUs per hour at 47 degrees reduced to 36,600 at only 17 degrees and no specs given for any lower temperature.
I have a super insulated house. My heat load for about 3000 sq feet is about 35,000 BTUs at – 20 degrees outside temperature. My only heat is a single high efficiency propane direct vent wall heater. I designed and built the house from top to bottom, including the heating, cooling, and electrical systems. And i have retrofitted and-or remodeled another 6 houses.
I actually believe in heat pump technology. It just isn’t cost competitive in cold climates yet.
Electricity from wind is not reliable enough. Electricity from solar is both expensive and unavailable at night when you need it the most in the winter. Pretty good match for cooling however.
and who really paid for the rebate? the middle class. Thermal storage systems…like where in the avg. house do these go again? We were talking about electric storage, not thermal….you do know the difference, or maybe not. Heat pumps take huge amounts of electricity to operate year round, bet you don’t know how much one will cost annually?
Electric cars are the future….oh yeah, I’m on the short list for a VOLT. Temp. is zero and the car is frozen solid.
The leader in Wind power is Denmark not Germany, and the people pay outrageous rates for it.
Heat pumps take 2x+ as long to pay back the return on investment over conventional heating. see http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/residential/heating-heat-pump/4345 for details from Canada…whose stats I trust more than some sales rep.
TrickleUpPoverty – Can you reference a specific report of job loss? Studies conducted by academic and research institutions world-wide suggest a different conclusion about jobs created with different types of energy.
Most notably, check out this report by UMass Amherst Political Economy Research Institute (PERI): http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/other_publication_types/peri_report.pdf
The report details that, for every million dollars invested in the following industries, you get this many jobs:
– Natural Gas (5)
– Coal (7)
– Smart Grid (12)
– Wind (13)
– Solar (14)
– Biomass (16)
– Building Retrofits (efficiency) (17)
– Mass Transit/Freight Rail (22)
I have yet to come across any research that shows any job loss, just better jobs for more people.
All this tells me is that wind power adds the cost and inefficientcy of 7 more payrolls that the consumer has to pay for in their rates. Since when does bloated payrolls benefit a well tuned productive economy?
So when do you expect use cool fusion, Coolfusion ?
I noticed nuclear power did not even make the list … but then, how jobs are there in a human exclusion zone ?
Decommisioning Maine Yankee in Wiscasset was a colossal mistake and vast in its implications. Think back to those days of yesteryear and ask yourself why it was dismantled? Were you influenced by the Clamshell alliance dropout hippies dressed in peasant garb spouting quotes from Mao’s “Little Red Book” who never completed a science course in their life? Perhaps it was the hysteria created by media reports of the minor incident at 3 mile island or the hyped Y2K’ish movie ” China Syndrome” and you panicked. Or was it a political bandwagon to get your candidate elected? In any case, the end result has been devastating. It’s time to begin with a clear mind a new dialogue, objective and rational in manner, taking in consideration of economic implications, the improvments in the 3rd and 4th generation nuclear technology, and the competitive impact in a global economy. Wind power is the answer by the corrupt establishment.. but we can do better .. much better.
If nukes are so great why aren’t they being built. The nuclear waste is still stored at the site. No one will take it. The only way these plants get built is with government money. Insurance companies will not insure them.
There are several reports about the negative effect of renewable energy in Spain on overall jobs. And other studies refuting those studies. And so on.
I read the report. I do not doubt the number of jobs created. Unfortunately, most of these jobs are temporary at best. When the construction is done most of the jobs go away. The real problem is the long term effect of the higher energy costs of renewables.
I do question a lot of the premises used in the PERI report. One example is on page 15, It claims that the average household with a $60,000 dollar average annual income spends an average of $3000 a year on home energy and with only a $2,500 energy retrofit can save $900. I think the last 2 numbers are completely bogus. I’ve done a LOT of “retrofitting” and remodeling. $2500 will get you crap. Maybe weatherstripping and caulking including labor. If your house is leaky enough for that to save $900 then you were spending a lot more than $3000 to start with. To actually cut 30% requires some major work. Replacing windows, Adding lots of insulation and just adding to the attic, (the quickest and least expensive place usually to add), won’t do it. You would also have to replace appliances, heating systems, etc. $2,500 won’t touch it. I don’t care who in the DOE says so.
The reports are more than likely produced to discredit renewables. Those fossil fuel people hate competition.
For what it’s worth. I also do weatherization. The last and least effective, most costly thing you do is add new windows. Insulate the attic to R-60, insulate the rim joists, and air seal. Should get you to 30% or more.
2000 sq ft house. 0 degrees outside heated to 68 degrees.
6 in insulation, R 19 Heat loss 7158 BTUs per hour.
9.5 in insulation, R 30 Heat loss 4533 BTUs per hour.
12 in insulation, R 38 Heat loss 3579 BTUs per hour.
19 in insulation, R 60 Heat loss 2267 BTUs per hour.
From R 30 to R 60 you saved 2267 BTUs per hour or 54,408 BTUs a day if outside temp stays at 0 degrees. The reality is that you hit significant diminishing returns just adding attic insulation. And in many buildings it is difficult or even impossible to build insulation to R60. Especially near the eves.
Rim joists, yes. Mine are R 30. But in most older 2 story buildings or if the basement has been finished this is a major retrofit. And fiberglass doesn’t work well here because of the difficulty of adding a proper vapor barrier. I’ve seen fiberglass insulation stuffed in theses spaces soaked with water and frozen solid. Can you say rot and mold.
Air seal. Very effective. And also very difficult to successfully do on older buildings without also inadvertently creating moisture problems both in the building and in the walls. And this is precisely the point where new windows can really pay off. Argon filled, low E, foamed in at edges.
Replace solid exterior doors with insulated fiberglass….
If you post why not try to be factual.
Electric thermal storage is a very reasonably priced method of storing off peak electricity and releasing the heat when needed. It is used extensively in Canada to take advantage of electricity produced from hydro. Same could be for electricity produced from wind.
Mini split air source heat pumps produce 3 units of heat for every one unit of electricity used. That would be a COP of 3 or 300% efficient.
They run efficiently down to about 5 degrees F. The up front cost is actually very low. A 7000 BTU system can be installed for about 3500.00. The pay back is a few years. Larger mini splits that are rated up to 24000 BTUs can be installed for around 5K.
Electric cars have challenges just as gas powered cars had 100 years ago. We built the highway system and planted gas stations along them For the electric cars same deal, Charging stations.
I drove VW bugs. Best car I ever owned. To dumb to take a ride. Walk
I looked up specifications on thermal storage units. They pretty
much store heat for what the computer software ESTIMATES you will need over the next 24 hours.based on temperature readings. God help you whenyou have a cold snap and the computer “estimated” you would only need heat based on the previous only chilly weather.
The bricks in the thermal storage units can get as hot as 1400
degrees. Also, the external temperature of the unit can be as high as 180 degrees. Have you ever touched something at 180 degrees? It’s called getting a severe burn. Specifications call for significant clearance around the units.
And the units are NOT inexpensive.
The mini splits are very nice units. But efficiency drops off below 5 degrees. And only one particular series is even rated for those cold temperatures including down to -13 degrees. Most of the units, including most that have a decent BTU output, only show specs down to 17 degrees and even at that temperature their efficiency is already down by at least 25% from the rating at 47 degrees.
I do not consider $3500 for 7000 BTUs to be a very good investment. A high efficiency direct vent propane heater is less money, more efficient, more reliable, less expensive to run, and gives you more heat.
If you are considering one of these mini-splits for whole house heating then you better have a super insulated house at least and consider having a supplemental heat source as well…. There goes most if any savings.
I can see the charging stations for electric cars now. They are called motels. You know, for the 8+ hour wait for that charge.
The fact is that electric cars are completely impractical for long distance travel or even for anyone who has to drive for more than an hour or so per day. Lots of jobs require more driving time than that to perform the job.
That you think the VW bug was the best car you ever owned says everything necessary about your credibility.
I build super insulated homes. Heat pumps provide most of the heat. Backup is needed for very cold periods. There is no other heating device that produces heat for less money. Mini splits are the clear winner.
For older homes multi splits can get the job done. One compressor and several heads heating different areas. Time will show that this is the way to go. Add solar electricity to mix and heating becomes even cheaper.
Have you heard about air to water heat pumps? Check out the Altherma by Daiken. Produces water hot enough to heat a radiant slab at a fraction of the cost of gas.
Loved that old VW. Cheap to run and maintain and never got stuck in the snow. Credible reasons to own one.
Heat pump systems make sense in super insulated houses. But you still need to add a supplemental heating system for very cold periods. That is added expense and space taken out of the living space.
Mini splits in older homes. Lets get real. Unless you also do a major retrofit of insulation, windows, etc. it just cannot supply the necessary BTUs.
And the idea that you came up with for installing more than 1 system if you need more heat may work, but is very expensive. Not to mention all the extra wall units all over the house. Come on, really?
If you have a website for your business, please share.
LePage hates the idea because HE is totally BOUGHT & OWNED by Big GOP OIL COMPANIES… Oil companies spend millions $$$ on condemning wind, they cannot make money on wind because it is FREE… In ten short years, gasoline may be $20.00 per gallon… Your paycheck may rise 10%…
Will probably be the first wind turbine to break the $1/Kwh barrier!
…Mutha, run for your life that damn turbine broke its moorings again!!
When we have an energy source suitable for The Grid powered
by Hot Air then we will be on to something.
And then maybe our politicians will begin to earn their keep.
This is a 1/8th scale turbine with a 112 foot blade? This would translate to an almost 900 foot blade. add a 25 foot hub and that is a blade diameter of over 1/3 mile. How high will this thing have to be above the surface? a half mile?
from the article….
“The diameter of the blades’ rotation will be 500 feet and the distance from water level to the hub at the top of the tower will be about 300, Dagher said.”
reading comprehension….
The article states that the BLADE is 112 feet long and is a 1/8 scale model. Even if what should have been said was that the blade diameter is 112 feet if it is still 1/8h scale that is almost 900 feet.
Pay attention to what is said …
I did – you did not.
Yessah
No, the blade is in the Offshore Wind Laboratory and is for another project. That lab designs and tests blades and other long structural components up to 230 feet (it’s the longest structural testing floor in the U.S.).
So you are saying that this article is about more than one project?
Maybe it should say so instead of being uninformative.
Or maybe it was written to play to as many people as possible and damn reality.
Larry – hang on.
It reads:
That turbine, a one-eighth scale version of the turbines that would be used in the future offshore wind farm, will be floating in the Gulf of Maine next year, likely between April and August.
The turbine going into the water off Monhegan Island next year will be used to test control systems and sensors that would be used on the full-scale version.
THEN:
After testing with the prototype is completed, a pair of 6-megawatt turbines will be installed by 2017 at a site called Aqua Ventus I. By 2020, that would grow to a larger-scale commercial wind farm with 80 turbines in a 4- by 8-mile space 20 miles offshore, over the horizon and neither visible nor audible from shore. By 2030, the goal is to have a full-scale wind farm of around 170 turbines operational and bringing 5 gigawatts of wind energy to Maine’s shore.
Well that makes things as clear as knee deep mud. It has been explained that this “news Piece” is about more than one project and I am glad that it has been explained, but why was this article clear on that from the beginning?
Was this written to inform or to confuse?
As usual the BDN editors have not really done their jobs, unless the job is to make things less clear.
Larry, the photo caption reads: “Habib Dagher, director of the UMaine Advanced Structures and Composites Center (front right), and Jake Ward, assistant vice president for research, economic development and governmental relations at UMaine (front left), stand with members of deep water offshore wind energy development team stand under a 121-foot turbine blade undergoing stress testing at the UMaine research facility on Friday.”
Lots of projects are on-going at UMaine’s Composites Center (6 major research programs ranging from offshore wind to defense composites, among others; millions of dollars in research funding each year; hundreds of testing contracts with private companies).
The blade in the photo is being tested as part of another program.
This is undoubtibly true but as usual the BDN editors are not being clear and multiple projects seem to be reported on and that is not made clear.
You can contact the editors to offer feedback – toll free in Maine: 800.432.7964
Larry, I understand your confusion. The scaling for coupled wind/wave technology is a little more complex than 1:1. See below:
“The diameter of the blades’ rotation will be 500 feet and the distance from water level to the hub at the top of the tower will be about 300.”
More Hubub from Habib.
Dr. Habib Dagher has created more than 150 jobs at the University of Maine’s Advanced Structures and Composites Center (not counting the spin-off companies he has helped create or the Maine companies he has helped expand product lines for, etc.). He has inspired hundred of students and young professionals who he has mentored over the years.
Since its founding in 1996, the UMaine Composites Center has supported thousands of students financially (and helped keep these students in Maine through its spin-off companies); helped hundreds of Maine companies (and companies from over 25 countries) expand and optimize their product lines; brought millions of research and infrastructure dollars to Maine’s largest university; and won some of the top awards in composites materials, innovation, and economic development.
The list of people doing more to keep our young people in the state, create good jobs, and change Maine’s economic landscape is quite short.
While you’re doing publicity for Habib; Maine’s composite boat building industry is threatened with extinction. You claim to create 150 jobs; but the industry has been halved:
from LYMAN MORSE Newsletter:
“According to data from trade group National Marine Manufacturers Association, 146,630 new traditional power and sail boats (excluding personal watercraft, canoes and kayaks) were sold in the United States in 2010, down 55 percent from a high of 327,100 in 2005.
The value of those sales dropped 50 percent during the period, from $10.2 billion in 2005 to $5.18 billion in 2010.
Recreational powerboat sales and marine accessory sales in Maine totaled $84.5 million in 2010, down 62 percent from $221.2 million in 2005, according to the group.”
Susan Swanton, executive director at the Maine Marine Trades Association, said Maine boatbuilders “took a hit as hard, if not harder, than everybody else.”
Your efforts and shilling for Habib are commendable, but are only a drop in the bucket when compared to huge losses Maine’s traditional composite’s industry has suffered over the past five years.
Why would the university take money from demons???
Most of the heroes in my life have long since passed away, so it’s a real treat to find a new one. Mr. Habib Dagher is a true hero and Mainers are very, very lucky to have him living here and working so diligently to make life better for us.