Footnotes
A blog in support of renewable energy.Where?s the Dismay?
A best we're talking 1.7 percent, and the price for wind won't increase
With all the furor over the small rate increase for National Grid customers due to the Cape Wind agreement do I hear anything about the more outlandish increase in "Delivery Charges" from NStar? No!
Let's compare the small wind energy impact in an electric bill to a much larger creeping increase in the Delivery Charge part of your NStar bill.
Do I have this right? The Cape Wind deal will up the typical National Grid monthly bill of $74.08 for a typical customer using 557 kWh by $1.26? That's just 1.7%. [1]
Looking at my NStar bill this month (I'm not in the National Grid area) I was astonished to see that the "Delivery Charges [2]" (transmission, distribution, transition, etc.) have increased to 10.0 cents/kWh from 9.1 cents as recently as last July.
My "supplier charge" from ConEdison Solutions for the cost of electricity is the same as National Grid, i.e. 7.9 cents/kWh.
For an identical 557 KWh, this six-month escalation in the NStar delivery charge of 0.9 cents/kWh results in an increase of $5.01 [3] in the typical monthly bill or a 5% increase. And this has nothing to do with the cost of electricity.
So do I hear any complaints from the anti-wind cabal? Not a peep. No AG investigation. No law suits. Forget about it. Just grin and bear it.
In a dichotomy of public perception we focus not on the important NStar delivery charge increase of 5.0%, but the trivial Cape Wind impact of 1.7%.
Footnotes
1. "Cape Wind backers blew right by cost", Beth Daley, Boston Globe, October 10, 2010.
2. Delivery charges include the following categories: a customer charge, distribution, transition, transmission, renewable energy, and an energy conservation charges.
3. The NStar delivery charge is now 10 cents/kWh. My supplier charge (ConEdison Solutions) is the same as National Grid, i.e. 7.9 cents/kWh for a total of 17.9 cents/kWh. Times 557 kWh is $99.10. The increase of 0.9 cents/kWh in the delivery charge is $5.01 or about 5% of the bill.
Wind Power Always Replaces Fossil Fuels
Some people challenge the fact that wind power will reduce the use of fossil fuels to generate electricity. Allow me to make the case that every megawatt-hour of wind generated power will indeed replace the equivalent electricity generated from oil, natural gas or coal, and in that order. Importantly, wind power will avoid the environmentally harmful and unhealthful emissions resulting from those fossil fuel replacements. And the use of wind power will decrease the import of oil and natural gas consequently easing a national security concern and national trade deficit.
Wind is a variable resource by nature. So wind power may not replace any particular fossil plant per se. However wind is considered a replacement source of fuel as it cuts back (offsets) the generation of electricity by conventional fossil fueled plants. And by design, wind power is dispatched at all times when it is available thereby avoiding the consumption of an equivalent amount of fossil fuel in a conventional power plant or combination of such plants. In the case of offshore wind, it will make significant contributions during peak load hours on hot summer days and especially in the winter.
This is a somewhat complex subject to present. It may require an investment of your time to understand the technical principles behind the conclusions. But bear with me. I will try to keep it factual and concise. Footnotes are provided for the persistent.
Let's cut to the chase, a base load unit
Take for example the base load generating Unit #1 at Mirant's Canal Plant. It is representative of the most efficient fossil fueled plants of the 1970 era. It's an oil fueled supercritical steam unit optimally designed to best operate between half load and full load. Boiler steam is produced at 3,600 psi at 1,000 degrees fahrenheit to drive the nominally rated 560 megawatt (MW) capacity Westinghouse turbine/generator [1].
Let's look at two different operating points.
In one of its finest hours, on January 1, 2006 at hour 18 (i.e., between 6:00 PM and 7:00 PM) the electrical output peaked at 576 MWh. From EPA data records [2] the heat energy input for that hour was 5,322 mmBTU (that's a million British Thermal Units [3]).
Considering the fact that one barrel of residual fuel oil produces 6.287 mmBTU, this means 846 barrels of oil were consumed during this hour to produce that amount of heat energy (for steam to turn the generator's turbine). At 42 gallons per barrel, that's equivalent to 35,553 gallons of oil to produce the 576 MWh. Calculations show that the "heat rate" a performance measurement, was 9,240 BTU/kWh for an efficiency of 36.9%. [4]
A few hours later at hour 23, around midnight when the electrical dispatch was decreased (backed off) due to a smaller consumer load, the generator output was only 357 MWh, about half of the full load capacity. The heat input during that hour was reduced to 3,375 mmBTU. During this hour 22,554 gallons of oil were consumed [5]. The heat rate was 9,455 BTU/kWh for an efficiency of 36.1%.
That's a very small reduction in efficiency for operating at about half load. It is the foundation of the claim that every MWh of wind energy will reduce (displace) a MWh of fossil fueled electrical generation on a linear i.e., a proportional basis with little loss of efficiency while consuming only the minimum of fuel required to maintain the power output at that moment in time.
This example reduction of 219 MWh (from 576 MWh to 357 MWh) for an hour, be it because lots of people turned off their lights or if wind power produced 219 MWh (had it been built at the time), the wind power would have saved 13,000 gallons of oil during hour 23 on that date [6]. Data at every other hour would show a proportional reduction in fuel consumption if wind power was providing electricity at the hour under consideration.
In terms of emissions, the Canal plant emits somewhat over 1,800 pounds of CO2 per MWh produced [7]. In this example for hour 23, the reduction of 219 MWh if generated from wind would have meant an avoidance of 394,200 pounds or 197 tons of carbon dioxide for that hour. In addition the unit's sulfur dioxide emissions at the rate of 3 pounds per MWh [8] would have been reduced by 657 pounds and nitrogen oxides at 1.5 pounds/MWh [9] would have been reduced by 438 pounds.
This is a significant linear reduction in fuel consumption and avoidance of emissions when wind is available as a replacement fuel. It illustrates exactly how much oil would have been saved and emissions avoided during this example hour. The point illustrated here is that a fossil fueled plant does not burn any more fuel than required to turn the generator at its instantaneous operating load.
Therefore to say when wind power comes on line it will not reduce fossil fuel consumption is simply erroneous.
A second example, an intermediate (cycling) unit
For a second example, consider generating Unit #2 at Mirant's Canal Plant. Again it's an oil fueled unit with a capacity of 560 MW. It is called an "intermediate" or "cycling" unit meaning that it is designed to operate over a wide range from 20% of full load to full load to better match the daily power cycling of users. Operating at a reduced steam pressure of 2,400 psi, it is less efficient than a base load unit because of design compromises to accommodate the wide operating range.
On Jan. 19, 2006 at hour 18 its output was 459 MWh. The heat input was 4,415 mmBTU resulting in a heat rate of 9,618 BTU/kWh for an efficiency of 35.5%. It consumed 29,494 gallons of oil during that hour.
Later that day at hour 21 the output was 240 MWh, about one third of full load capacity. The heat input was then 2,374 mmBTU and the heat rate was 9,891 BTU/kWh for an efficiency of slightly less at 34.5%. It consumed 15,859 gallons of oil during that hour or 13,635 gallons less than at hour 18.
The reduction in this example for Unit #2 was also 219 MWh (459 MWh minus 240 MWh) for hour 21. Again, be it because lots of people turned off their lights or wind power produced 219 MWh (had it been built then), the wind power would have saved 13,635 gallons of oil at hour 21 on that date [10].
Likewise, in terms of emissions, this reduction in Unit #2 if from wind would have meant a reduction of 197 tons of carbon dioxide for hour 21, and 657 pounds of SO2, and 438 pounds of NOx.
The point of this discussion is that no fossil fueled generating unit consumes more fuel than that which is absolutely necessary to produce the dispatched power allowed under the rules of the ISO. When the wind comes up or air conditions and lights are turned off, less fuel is consumed on a linear basis.
A Brief Background on Price and Who Gets Backed Off. The UCP.
Electricity cannot be stored on the electrical distribution grid. So let's discuss who gets to dispatch their generated electricity. It will fit in with the wind story later.
The mission of the Independent System Operator of New England (ISO NE) is to exquisitely balance the power from about 300 generating plants with the variable consumer load on a minute-by-minute basis, and do it with reasonably priced electricity. ISO is responsible for establishing and overseeing the competitive wholesale electricity markets and making sure that sufficient electricity is reliably dispatched to meet public requirements.
To accomplish this task ISO administers the wholesale electricity market based on a Uniform Clearing Price (UCP) day-ahead auction, as do all wholesale electricity markets in the United States. The ISO dispatches generators in the region from an hourly bid stack that starts from the lowest-priced bids (this includes generators that bid $0, such as [wind], hydro, and nuclear units) and progress to higher-priced bids (i.e., from coal, natural gas, and oil fueled generating units) until there is sufficient generation to meet consumers' demand for each hour of the next day [11].
At the point where the bids meet the expected load for each hour of the next day, a line is drawn, called the uniform clearing price (UPC).
The UCP auction is one in which each winning bidder below the UPC gets dispatched and receives that same price as the last unit needed to meet the demand for electricity by consumers, regardless of what their individual offer price was. For example, if a coal generator bids 4 cents/kWh and the clearing price is 7 cents/kWh, then the coal generator gets paid 7 cents/kWh.
A UCP ensures that clean energy sources with no fuel costs, such as wind [and hydro] that are bid in at zero dollars, will always be dispatched and displace (i.e., backoff) plants with higher operating costs and air emissions [12].
Note: even though the price of fuel is zero for wind, solar and hydro, it does not mean that the cost of producing electricity from these renewable sources is zero. None-the-less, according to the rules and intent of ISO NE, wind, solar, and hydro bids are placed at the bottom of the stack and will always be dispatched when available.
Whose Electricity is Most Expensive
As a measure of whose electricity is more expensive, consequently reflecting where one is placed on the stack, look at the fuel costs as they are the main driver of electricity prices. The cost of fuel for running power plants makes up more than 80% of the wholesale price of electricity [13].
The pre-recession cost of residual fuel oil (1% sulfur content) in July of 2008 was $117/barrel. Knowing the heat rate of the oil fired steam plant like Canal Unit #2 one can calculate the fuel cost of generating electricity then was about 19 cents/kWh resulting in a wholesale price then of about 24 cents/kWh [14].
Now the cost of residual fuel oil in a world recession is about $80/barrel. This leads to a wholesale price now of oil generated electricity of about 16 cents/kWh. No wonder oil fueled steam generators are all but obsolete and cannot compete with natural gas units.
The pre-recession cost of natural gas in New England was about $12/mmBTU yielding a wholesale electricity price then of about 10 cents/kWh [15]. Now with the delivered cost of natural gas [16] at about $5/mmBTU the cost of fuel to generate a kWh is 3.4 cents. So now the wholesale price of natural gas generated electricity is about 4 cents/kWh.
The price of coal for generating electricity has stayed relatively low for many years. In 2008 it was $2.11 mmBTU and now $2.31 mmBTU [17] leading to a wholesale price of coal generated electricity of about 2.4 cents/kWh.
The cost of fuel for nuclear plants is about 0.35 cents/kWh [18]. A little uranium goes a long way according to Einstein. This leads to a wholesale cost of nuclear generated electricity of some 2.0 cents/kWh [19]. This is lower than fossil fuels for the existing fleet of old nuclear plants that have been paid off years ago. However this low price is totally unrealistic for new nuclear plants. And that's another story. If you think wind power is expensive, wait till you have to pay for electricity from a new nuclear plant.
It is clear that wind power bid into the stack will replace the most expensive fossil fuel bids starting with oil on top (if any), then natural gas (most likely), finally coal and nuclear (unlikely).
Price Takers
Participants in the UCP auction are known as "price takers." This means each winning unit, be it a hydro, wind, solar, nuclear, coal, natural gas or oil unit that is dispatched, is willing to "take" whatever the clearing price is at that moment in time. The UCP scheme ultimately benefits consumers by bumping higher bidders thus lowering the wholesale cost of power to all users.
About one-quarter of all wholesale electricity sales in New England are traded in this day-ahead spot market. The balance of wholesale electricity sales are administered in private power purchase agreements (PPAs) between a generating company and a retail distribution utility like NStar or National Gird.
The important fact is that the electricity under contract for physical delivery in these PPAs is also placed at the bottom of the bid stack since the price was previously and privately negotiated between the wholesale generator and the retail distributor. Therefore both price takers and PPAs directly affect the spot market by lowering the UCP [20].
For example, a large wind farm like the Cape Wind with a capacity of 468 MW would lead to a forecasted reduction in New England's wholesale cost of electricity averaging $185 million annually over the 2013-2037 time period, resulting in an aggregate savings (price suppression) of $4.6 billion over 25 years [21]. This price suppression has been vigorously debated and there are differences of opinion as to its assumptions and conclusions.
It should be noted that the long term price of wind power in such a PPA may be somewhat higher than the current wholesale market which is largely dictated by the cost of natural gas. This will result in a slight increase in the retail market price for customers of a distribution utility like National Grid or NStar at this time.
However the advantage of long term PPA contracts with wind developers is the fixed price (with an inflation factor) can be guaranteed over 15 to 25 years. The extreme volatility of fossil fuels all but prevents PPAs of more than two or three years for fossil fuels. For example, the wholesale price (the generation charge) increased from 3.9 cents/kWh in 2001 to 12.5 cents/kWh in 2008 mostly due to the price increase of oil and natural gas. Currently it is about 8 to 9 cents/kWh.
Three Types of Generation Plants
It is important to understand the characteristics of different kinds of generators to better appreciate how power plants interrelate in providing electricity for the grid. This backdrop will lead to an understanding of how wind energy, and intermittent source, will be integrated into the grid system.
There are three basic types of electrical generation units. Each is designed to optimize the production of electricity under different load situations.
But before discussing the details, it is helpful to understand the measure of production for electrical generators. It is called the "capacity factor" abbreviated "CP". (No, I don't know why the acronym is CP rather than CF). The capacity factor is defined as the ratio of the actual electricity generated (in MWh) divided by the theoretical maximum amount of electricity if the unit were running at full rated power for the period under consideration.
For example, if a unit is rated at 600 MW at full load (the nameplate capacity) [22] and produces 600 MWh for 12 hours a day and 300 MWh for the remaining 12 hours, it would have a capacity factor of 450 MWh (the average production over 24 hours) divided by 600 MWh or 75% for that day.
The CP is an average of actual production divided by the maximum production over the period of time of interest, be it a day, a month, or a year.
Base Load Units
First of the three types is the "base load" unit. They are designed to operate very efficiently from about half-full load to full load while serving a continual consumer base throughout the day and night.
Typically these are nuclear, coal, or natural gas fueled plants with lower fuel costs that generally provide the lowest cost electricity. Two decades ago oil fueled base load plants were competitive with coal but they are all but retired or off line now due to the high cost of oil.
Base load units comprise about a third or some 10,000 MW of New England's total generation capacity of 31,000 MW [23]. Nuclear plants run with capacity factors of 90% or more [24]. An outstanding example is the Plymouth Pilgrim nuclear plant that achieved a 98% CP in 2008 [25]. Coal plants like Brayton Point and Salem Harbor, each with three base load coal fired steam units run with yearly CPs of about 75% [26]. During the hay-day of Mirant's oil fueled base load Unit #1 it averaged a CP of 66% from 1997 to 1999. Base load natural gas fired combined cycle combustion turbines run with a CP of about 45% nationwide basis [27]. This is a considerably lower CP than coal or nuclear units due to the higher cost of natural gas on a BTU basis.
Contrary to common perceptions, base load units, other than nuclear plants, do not run anywhere near full load at all times.
Intermediate (Cycling) Units
The second type of generating unit is called an "Intermediate" or more appropriately a "Cycling" unit. These generating units are used during the transition between base-load and peak-load requirements. They come on line during intermediate load levels and ramp up and down relatively quickly to follow the load that peaks during the day and is lowest in the middle of the night.
Intermediate units are designed to operate over a wide range of power, from about 20% of full power to full power. As such, the tradeoff in engineering design compromises results in a lower efficiency than base load units at all operating points. Because of cycling up and down, their capacity factors are lower than base load units. Typically CPs for intermediate units range from 20% to 50% [28].
In New England well over half of the installed generation capacity consists of intermediate units. They are mostly relatively new, efficient, combined-cycle natural gas combustion turbines. Built over the last 15 years the existing fleet has a heat rate of about 7,500 BTU/kWh, with an efficiency of about 45%. The latest General Electric H-class gas turbines have a heat rate of 6,000 BTU/kWh with an efficiency of 60% [29].
Since intermediate units comprise over half the installed capacity and run at relatively low capacity factors at most times, this means that there is plenty of capacity to back-fill wind turbines as discussed later.
Gas combustion turbines that run as intermediate units are augmented by a diminishing number of oil fueled steam turbines, like Mirant's Unit #2. In its prime of the late 1990s Mirant's Unit #2 had a capacity factor of 50%.
Peaking Units
The least used generators are called "Peaking" units because they are rarely used except for unusually cold winter days or extremely hot summer days when everyone is using their air conditioners. In addition, "peakers" as they're known, can be called on as a generator of last resort to fill a gap if a large power plant drops offline due to a serious mishap. They are usually rather inefficient single cycle gas turbines or more rarely large diesel generators. Some peakers are of the "fast start" variety that can start from a cold state to produce full power within 10 minutes.
As such, the electricity they generated is more expensive that base load or intermediate plants. About 10% of the entire generating fleet in New England consists of peaking or fast-start units. Just a few years ago, there was a shortage of peak load capacity and some new units were constructed. For example the Braintree Electric Light Department (a town owned municipal generation plant) completed last year a two unit 116 MW gas peaker plant powered by two Rolls-Royce Trent 60 single cycle gas turbines with heat rates of 9,500 BTU/kWh (an efficiency of 36%) [30].
Typically peaker plants run at capacity factors of 5% to 40% since they are less efficient than intermediate units.
Pumped storage, one solution to variable wind.
Pumped storage hydro plants operate on the principle of using excess low cost electricity at night to pump water uphill to a reservoir only to be returned during the day in reversible water turbines generating electricity at a premium price during peak needs. Pumped storage hydro plants can operate either as cycling units or peaker plants. Such plants are about 75% efficient. For every 100 MWh used in its electric motors to pump water uphill, about 75 MWh is generated in those motors, now generators, as it flows back.
In Massachusetts the Bear Swamp plant (625 MW) in Rowe and the Northfield Mountain plant (1,080 MW) were built in the 1970s with the intent of operating as cycling units in conjunction with nuclear plants that are purely base load units. The Rowe Yankee Atomic plant is long gone but these pumped hydro plants still operate profitably as cycling units or peaker plants depending on season and intent of the owner operators.
These two pumped storage units represent 5.4% of the New England's generation capacity. This is equal to the capacity of all conventional hydro plants in New England. As a historical note, the first pumped storage unit in America was the Rocky River plant (31 MW) built in New Milford, Connecticut in 1926. It is still operating today and is a National Historic Engineering Landmark [31].
Although electricity cannot be stored on the transmission grid, energy can be stored in the form of elevated water. This pumped storage is a way not only to provide a peaking function for base load nuclear and coal generators, but also a mature way to store excess energy from windfarms for use in smoothing low wind conditions. Pumped storage units can ramp up to full power in a matter of seconds on demand.
Under development is compressed air storage in underground caverns (as in natural gas storage). It is a concept similar to pumped hydro storage where the compressed air on release powers turbine generators.
And of course there is electrical battery storage. Up until now batteries have been too small to be of commercial use. However, the advent of high capacity batteries for plug-in cars will add to the need for nighttime electricity to power our vehicles instead of gasoline. What better way to use wind power from the grid.
Wind Integration Issues
The total capacity of New England's fleet of some 300 electrical generators is about 31,000 MW [32]. The actual electrical production of New England's generators in 2009 was 124,749,000 MWh. This production represents an average utilization of less than half of the total installed generation capacity. In other words, the fleet has a capacity factor (CP) of less than 50% [33].
This means there is an enormous capacity, especially in flexible gas turbine powered intermediate (cycling) plants, at almost all times to back fill wind power as it waxes and wanes. In particular, the Cape Wind project of 468 MW is insignificant (about 1.5%) in size compared to the New England system capacity of 31,225 MW.
Experience has shown that there will be no major impact on the integration of wind until it reaches about 20%. ISO system operators treat a reduction in wind energy the same as they would an increase in energy demand from customers. Since variations in load and wind take place over many minutes the automatic generation control systems that monitor both load and generation every few seconds balance the two by sending signals to cycling power plants to increase or decrease their output.
Large regions like ISO NE with real time 5-minute markets tend to have greatly reduced wind integration issues because they can more quickly access the response capabilities of fast ramping natural gas turbine generation. For example, the GE 7FA frame gas turbines in a 525 MW plant have a ramp rate of up to 55 MW per minute [34].
A study for the Midwest Independent System Operator (MISO) service territory shows wind energy can be readily integrated into the utility system. The total integration cost for up to 25% from wind would be only 0.045¢/kWh [35].
California has found that the current cost of integrating wind energy is essentially zero, in part due to the large number of flexible (gas fueled cycling) generators in the state and the large balancing area [36]. Even at 20% penetration, the cost of regulation related to wind variability is fairly low, less than 0.1 cent/kWh [37].
Wind at Peak
Wind is generally considered a replacement fuel used of offset fossil fueled generators. But in the case of offshore wind significant contributions to the grid at peak load times are factual. For example in the winter crisis of January 14-16, 2004 grid controllers were on the verge of initiating rolling blackouts due to the inadequacy of natural gas supply. Over those three days, Cape Wind would have contributed an average of 396 MW per hour [38].
During summer peak load conditions the sea breeze effect is responsible for strong offshore winds during hot afternoons that coincide with the highest electricity demands. In those conditions, Cape Wind would have produced an average of 321 MW per hour at the grid's peak hour during each of the past ten record-setting electric demand days [39].
During those hot days, the oldest marginal power plants with high cost and heavy unhealthy emissions are called up. It is this dirty, expensive power that can be offset at those times with non-polluting offshore wind.
This data points out the benefits of offshore wind with sea breezes compared to land based wind that more often sit idle on hot summer afternoons.
Impact of the Massachusetts Green Communities Act of 2008
Wind is all the more important with the adoption of the Massachusetts Green Communities Act of 2008. The Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) section has been updated to minimum percentages for Class I renewables [40] to be 5% in 2010 increasing at 1% a year to 15% in 2020 and then increasing at 1% a year thereafter unless modified by law [41]. The Act also introduced a Class II renewable category that includes waste-to-energy which is a component of conventional municipal solid waste plant technology with a minimum percentage of 5% in 2020 [42].
As separate and distinct from the RPS, Section 83 of the Act requires each distribution company to twice solicit in a 5 year period (from July 1, 2009) proposals from renewable energy developers, and provided reasonable proposals have been received, enter into cost-effective long-term (10 to 15 years) contracts to facilitate the financing of renewable energy generation. The distribution companies shall not be obligated to enter into contracts that would exceed 3% of the total energy demand of their customers. The Act shall also provide for an annual remuneration for the contracting distribution company equal to 4 per cent of the annual payments under the contract to compensate the company for accepting the financial obligation of the long-term contract [43].
Conclusions
The advance of wind power as a replacement fuel is confirmed in the fact that over one-third of all new generation capacity in the U.S. is from wind turbines. Most of the balance is in the form of low emission natural gas fueled combustion turbines whose fast ramp rates provide a complementary base for near term solutions to our electrical energy needs. Near offshore wind will also contribute significantly to the peak load demands both in winter and hot summer days due to the sea breeze effect.
Integration into the existing grid structures is relatively straightforward at least up to a penetration of 20% or so with minimal impact in cost. This means that the goal of the Green Communities Act can be met with a mix of renewables where wind will be the dominate source. With offshore wind capacity factors near 40% it will take about three windfarms the size of Cape Wind to fulfill the Act's obligation of 15% renewables by the year 2020 [44].
While wind power is more costly this year than fossil fueled electricity one should remember that the wholesale price tripled between 2001 and 2008 went from 3.9 cents/kWh to 12.5 cents/kWh, mostly due to a quadrupling of the price of natural gas. That volatility will not relent in the future.
The benefits of energy independence, pollution avoidance, and long term price stability are all attributes that make wind the most desirable choice for future of electrical energy needs of our society.
The ISO regulations are designed such that wind power will always offset the most expensive fossil fuels. A megawatt-hour from wind replaces a megawatt-hour of fossil fuel. Wind wins.
Footnotes
1. "Emission Control Plan, Mirant Canal LLC Canal Station," MA DEP, January 2, 2002.
2. The EPA keeps records on all generation plants in terms of MW of electrical output and heat input (in BTUs) for all 8,760 hours during the year.
3. A British Thermal Unit (BTU) is defined as the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit. By-the-way, the letter "m" stands for the number 1,000 (from the Roman numeral "M"). So "mm" means a million, i.e. a thousand times a thousand. (Don't you love these archaic units of measurement?)
4. The theoretical equivalent of heat energy to electrical energy is 3,412 BTU/kWh. Reference your college physics handbook. Therefore the efficiency of the plant at that hour was 3,412 divided by 9,240 or 36.9 percent.
5. During this hour 537 barrels of residual oil were consumed which is 22,554 gallons of oil.
6. The change in oil consumption from hour 18 of 35,553 gallons to 22,554 gallons at hour 23. The savings in oil is the difference in oil consumption for those two operating hours which is 13,000 gallons of oil in round numbers.
7. "Emission Control Plan, Mirant Canal LLC Canal Station," MA DEP, January 2, 2002. Table 1, Existing Historical Emission Data, 1997 to 1999.
8. Compliance with Massachusetts emission law 310 CMR 7.29, requires a maximum limit of SO2 at 3 #/MWh.
9. Compliance with Massachusetts emission law 310 CMR 7.29, requires a maximum limit of NOx at 1.5 #/MWh.
10. The difference of 29,494 gal. minus 15,859 gal. is 13,635 gallons.
11. ISO NE, "The Benefits of Uniform Clearing-Price Auctions For Pricing Electricity," March 2006, p. 1.
12. ISO NE, "Electricity Costs and Pricing in New England's Power Market," February 2006. See also ISO NE, "The Benefits of Uniform Clearing-Price Auctions For Pricing Electricity: Why Pay-As-Bid Auctions Do Not Cost Less," March 2006, p. 1.
13. ISO NE, "Electricity Costs and Pricing in New England's Power Market," February 2006.
14. The heat rate of Unit #2 is about 10, 000 BTU/kWh. The heat content of residual oil is 6,287,000 BTU/barrel. This means 628 kWh can be generated from a barrel of oil that costs $117. Hence the cost of fuel per kWh is 18.6 cents representing 80% of the wholesale cost of 24 cents/kWh.
15. The heat rate of a modern combined cycle gas turbine plant is about 7,600 BTU/kWh. A fuel price of $5/mmBTU yields a cost of fuel for a kWh of about 8 cents which represents 80% of the wholesale cost of 10 cents/kWh.
16. The spot market price of natural gas is about $4/mmBTU at the Henry Hub in Louisiana. The pipeline delivery charge is about $1/mmBTU resulting in a delivered price of about $5/mmBTU in Massachusetts.
17. "U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-423, "Monthly Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Plants Report."
18. "The Economics of Nuclear Power," Uranium Information Center, May, 2005.
19. "Record-Low Production Costs, Near-Record Output Mark Stellar Year for U.S. Nuclear Power plants," Business Wire, Feb. 20, 2007.
20. "Analysis of the Impact of Cape Wind on New England Energy Prices," Charles River Associates, February 8, 2010
21. Ibid., Charles River Associates, p. 1.
22. A "nameplate" is attached to every generator declaring the capacity of the unit (in kW or MW) and other specific details such as shaft speed (RPM), output voltage, frequency, etc.
23. "Ensuring Long Term Reliability of New England's Regional Electricity System," Gordon van Welie, President & CEO, ISO New England, Platts Northeast Power Markets Forum, March 30, 2006
24. From the Nuclear Energy Institute. http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/usnuclearpowerplants/
25. The Plymouth Pilgrim nuclear plant, rated at 685 MW generated 5,869,000 MWh in 2008. The maximum generation from a 685 MW plant would be 685 MW times 8,760 hours/year = 6,000,600 MWh. The ratio of actual to maximum (the capacity factor) is 0.978 or 97.8%. An outstanding record. Reference: U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA), http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/state_profiles/massachusetts/ma.html
26. Brayton Point data from an interview at the plant for production in 2006. Salem Harbor data from Egan Environmental for the year 2006.
27. From the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and the U.S. Energy Information Agency. Updated May, 2010.
28. "Industrial facility valuation: Electric generating projects," Richard K. Ellsworth, Appraisal Journal, January 200229. "GE Gas Turbine Products,"
30. Braintree Electric Annual Report, 2008. The 58 MW turbines have a heat rate of 9,500 BTU/kWh.
31. "Rocky River Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Station," The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, September 13, 1980.
32. "ISO NE Outlook," May 2009, p. 4. New England plants able to supply about 31,225 MW of electricity. That is a maximum generation of 273,531,000 MWh over 8,760 hours/year. Therefore the ratio of production in 2009 of 124,749,000 MWh to total capacity is 45.6%. This is the capacity factor of all of New England's generators combined.
33. "ISO NE 2008Generations Emissions Report, Preliminary Results," Helve Saarela, PAC Meeting, May 25, 2010, Slide 9.
34. GE Fact Sheet, "GE Fast Ramp AGC," A 525 megawatt combined-cycle cogeneration plant with 7FA gas turbine generators has a ramp rate of 55 MW/min.
35. "Wind Can Generate 25% of Grid Without Problem," reFocus Magazine, January 5, 2007. Study by EnerNex and WindLogics.
36. "Integrating Wind Power Into the Electrical Grid," National Conference of State Legislatures in cooperation with the National Wind Coordinating Collaborative, 2009. http://www.nationalwind.org/assets/publications/WINDFORMATTED5.pdf
37. "Multi-Year Analysis of Renewable Energy Impacts in California: Results from the Renewable Portfolio Standards Integration Cost Analysis," NREL Report No. CP-500-40058), 2006.
38. "Diversification Analysis - Natural Gas Supply/Wind Production," U.S. Department of Energy, Boston Office, A. Bender, June 6, 2004.
39. "Comparison of Cape Wind Scientific Data Tower Wind Speed Data with ISO New England List of Top Ten Electric Demand Days," Cape Wind Report, July 2, 2007.
40. Class I renewables include: solar PV, wind, ocean thermal, fuel cells using a Class I fuel, landfill methane gas, hydro up to 25 MW, low-emission biomass, marine or hydrokinetic energy, geothermal energy.
41. Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard, 225 CMR 14.00, as of December 29, 2008.
42. "Determination of the Minimum Standards for Massachusetts Class II and APS," DOER, February 5, 2009.
43. "An Act Relative to Green Communities," SENATE, No. 2768, June 23, 2008, Section 83.
44. The total retail load in Massachusetts in 2008 was 50,322,000 MWh. By 2020, 15% of that is an obligation of about 7,500,000 MWh. About 2,000,000 MWh in RECs were available in 2008 without Cape Wind. Remaining is a need for about 5,500,000 MWh of renewables by 2020. Most of that will come from wind. The annual output of Cape Wind is expected to be about 1,500,000 MWh. This means that about three wind farms the size of Cape wind will be required to meet the Green Communities Act in 2020.
Massachusetts? Largest Privately-Owned Wind Turbine
By Jim Liedell and Charles Kleekamp
Dan Webb, then vice president of Webb Research Corporation in Falmouth, began his interest in wind power in 2004 when he started attending seminars on wind turbines. An energy-expert friend heightened Dan's interest by suggesting a utility-scale turbine of at least one megawatt capacity for the site of his family's high-tech business in the Falmouth Technology Park. This windy, industrial location is one-third of a mile from the nearest residence and 180 feet above sea level.
Webb hired a consultant, Boreal Renewable Energy Development of Arlington, MA. In 2005 a detailed feasibility study was completed, supported by a grant from the Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust. The study included turbine sizes from 100 kilowatts to over one megawatt. By 2006 Webb applied for and received a substantial design and construction grant from the Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust Large On-Site Renewables program.
Webb investigated the possibility of running underground electrical cables to other nearby businesses within the Falmouth Technology Park. While well-intentioned, this approach was found to be too costly, and impractical due to legal constraints on cable placement. In 2007 new state legislation for virtual net metering, introduced by Representative Matt Patrick of Falmouth, would resolve this problem and facilitate renewable energy projects state-wide. The Green Communities Act, signed into law by Governor Deval Patrick in 2008, included the net metering provisions increasing the maximum allowed capacity of wind and solar systems from sixty thousand watts (60 kW) to two million watts (2 MW). Excess electricity which is not consumed on-site is paid for by the electric utility, or credits can be transferred to other electricity users.
The arduous process of seeking permits began. Webb recalled that "Navigating the maze of local, state, and federal permits became sort of an obsession to reach the next milestone". It took three more years of grueling effort for Webb to obtain approvals from numerous entities. Then in 2007 Webb obtained a $300,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. As the project now required more of his time and the company's money, Dan realized it was necessary to form a separate legal entity for the venture, and Notus Clean Energy LLC was born. The name Notus comes from the Greek god of southwest wind, the prevailing summer wind on Cape Cod.
Larger expenditures were soon required for detailed site surveys, engineering consultants, road and foundation designs, photo simulations and other necessary tasks. For example, a detailed noise study by Epsilon Associates determined the turbine sound level at nearest residences (about 0.3 miles distant), under worst-case conditions, would be less than 2 dB, barely perceptible to the human ear. The Massachusetts Noise Control Regulation, 310 CMR 7.10, allows a noise level of up to 10 dB above ambient (background) level, measured at the property line. By 2008 all permits were in place and Notus began preparing a request for construction proposals.
Then in 2009 it was time to shop for a wind turbine in the 1.5 MW range. Utility-scale wind turbines are typically sold in large numbers and are difficult to purchase in small quantities. Wind energy development was growing rapidly in the United States in 2009 and established turbine manufacturers would not consider selling just one turbine.
The only willing vendors had unproven designs or had never worked in the US market, risks that Webb was unwilling to take. By the summer of 2009 negotiations began for the purchase of a new Vestas 1.65 Megawatt wind turbine that had been in storage. This turbine was previously purchased by the Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust for the discontinued Orleans municipal project (an identical turbine was purchased by the Town of Falmouth and installed at their wastewater treatment plant). Vestas is the world's largest wind turbine manufacturer.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 made Notus eligible for a 30 percent cost grant, in lieu of the previously legislated Production Tax Credit for wind energy. Notus can apply for these funds when the turbine is operational.
On April 1, 2010 general contractor Delaney Group Inc. broke ground. Construction was an impressive sight, and went smoothly. The foundation contains 26 tons of steel reinforcing bars and required 32 cement-mixer truckloads. The giant construction crane, assembled on site, weighs 500 tons and requires its own permit from the FAA.
Interestingly, construction was the fastest phase of the project. Turbine installation was completed on May 18 and was connected to NStar's electrical grid on July 28.
The Notus wind turbine will generate enough electricity to power about 500 homes, reducing over 1,000 tons annually of CO2 emissions from New England fossil-fueled generators.
Offshore Wind: Europe Surges While America Dawdles
Imagine a renewable energy source so large it can provide enough power for 750,000 homes, or a quarter of all homes in London, England, especially when the fuel is free. It's called the London Array, and when built it will be the world's largest offshore windfarm.
The first phase of the project, announced May 12th, is financed by the Danish utility DONG Energy, E.ON of Germany and Masdar of Abu Dhabi. The consortium is investing $3.1 billion to push ahead with the first phase of the 1,000 MW project this summer. The London Array when complete will use 278 of the Siemens 3.6 MW turbines that are to be manufactured in Denmark.
Gordon Brown, the UK Prime Minister said: "The London Array is a flagship project in our drive to cut emissions by 80% by 2050 and meet future energy needs. The UK is a world leader in offshore wind farms, creating jobs and prosperity for the economy." E.ON CEO Dr. Wulf Bernotat said: renewable power can be taken to its next level and so make a real difference to the fight against climate change." Once compete it will displace the emission of 2 million tons of CO2 every year.
The United Kingdom has overtaken the lead from the Danes in the installation of offshore wind farms. Seven of the initial Round 1 projects of modest size with 30 turbines each have been completed since 2003 in near-shore, shallow waters. Names reveal the location, like Scroby Sands, Kentish Flats and Burbo Bank, to name a few. Five more are nearing completion now, Lynn Skegness, Inner Dowsing, Rhyl Flats, Robin Rigg and Gunfleet Sands.
The more ambitious UK Round 2 leases opened in 2003. These windfarms of 100 turbines or more are all in relatively shallow water using slender monopole foundations. Most are located within 12 miles of shore. Permits have been granted for the windfarms on Sheringham Shoal, Thanet, Greater Gabbard, and Gwynty Mor.
Looking back, European dominance in wind technology started in Denmark after the 1973 oil embargo. At that time the Danes depended on oil for 90% of their electrical generation. "Never again" was their credo. Denmark built their first offshore windfarm at Vindeby in 1991. In a couple of years it will celebrate its 20th anniversary.
The Danes have taken the lead in worldwide wind turbine technology and manufacturing. One manufacturer, Vestas, produces a large wind turbine every 3 hours, 24 hours a day for the world market. Now, in addition to over 4,000 land based wind turbines, the Danes have built eight offshore wind farms on shallow water shoals. With names like Middelgrunden in Copenhagen's busy harbor, to Horns Rev and Nysted, the world's two largest offshore windfarms that are now being doubled in size, and the completely energy independent Samsoe Island, the message is clear that shallow-water, near-shore windfarms are a mature technology.
Including Sweden, and the Netherlands, 18 offshore windfarms have been built in Europe since Cape Wind announced their plans for America's first offshore windfarm in 2001. Ten more are under construction and four additional projects have permits in place.
Offshore turbine manufacturing is dominated by Vestas in Denmark and Siemens of Germany which acquired the Danish manufacturer BONUS. Between them they have built and installed 546 offshore turbines to date. The Danish utility DONG Energy has just placed a blanket order for 500 of the Siemens 3.6 MW turbines (to be manufactured in Denmark) for their upcoming projects in Northern Europe. This is the same class size turbine selected for the Cape Wind Project.
Meanwhile here we sit with a privileged and powerful few fussing about the view. After eight exhausting years of numerous public hearings, tens of thousands of pages of research and substantiation, thorough reviews by 17 federal, state and local agencies, overcoming eight frivolous law suits, and expenditures approaching $30 million, we anxiously await a permit decision from the federal government for the Cape Wind project. Hopefully we will see a favorable "Record of Decision" from Secretary Salazar before winter.
Just think of the manufacturing and employment opportunities here if we can open the American market for offshore wind. Vestas alone has over 20 thousand employees. That's about half the size of the restructured General Motors. Those Danish wind turbines could and should be built here.
The Cape Wind project will be the beginning of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and natural gas that are the dominant fossil fuels for electrical generation in New England. Every megawatt-hour of wind power will eliminate the need to generate that same megawatt-hour from oil or natural gas. Overall it will avoid the emission of some 700,000 tons of carbon dioxide from those fossil fuels every year.
It's time to get on with it.
Charles Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Vice President, Clean Power Now
Cape Wind Electricity Costs Clarified
Recent comments by the opponents of the Cape Wind project have made, and continue to make, the outlandish claim that it will double the cost of your electricity. This is completely untrue and unsubstantiated. Allow me to explain.
The deregulation of the electrical industry in 1997 forced power companies to separate power plant ownership from the distribution facilities ownership. Power plant owners, including wind farm owners, are now called "wholesale energy suppliers," and are required to compete against one another on the basis of cost as sellers of power into the wholesale electricity market.
Retail distribution utilities, like NStar and National Grid, are still regulated utilities with stringent rules and government oversight on what costs, including wholesale purchase costs, they can pass through to their retail customers like you and me.
The oversight and fair administration of New England's wholesale electricity marketplace is the responsibility of the Independent System Operator of New England (ISO NE), a not-for-profit corporation.
There are only two ways power can be sold into that market which are described below.
The Spot Market
About one-quarter of all wholesale electricity is sold on the day-ahead spot market administered by ISO NE. This market is organized with an hourly bid stack where power plants compete by offering their electricity based on fuel cost and other considerations. The stack is arranged from lowest to highest offer.
When the amount of power offered meets the expected load demand a "uniform clearing price" is set for that hour of the day. It should be noted that the same clearing price is paid to all providers whose power is then dispatched into the grid, regardless of their offering price. This auction system is called "pay on peak" as opposed to "pay on offer."
By design and intent, wind power, like hydro power, can be offered into the wholesale market, at zero dollars (the fuel cost). So wind and hydro will always bump the highest bidder off the top of the stack.
As a result wind and hydro power well be dispatched and will always lower the wholesale uniform clearing price. Wind and hydro power bidders are known as "price takers," and will lower the clearing price (paid to the entire spot market) for each hour that they run.
Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs)
The balance, or about three-quarters of all wholesale power transactions in New England, are arranged through highly confidential "power purchase agreements (PPAs)" between power plant owners, (including renewable energy plants like wind farms) and the retail distribution utilities or their suppliers.
It should also be noted that all such contracted power transactions resulting from PPAs are treated by ISO NE as "zero dollars" bids, and are placed at the bottom of the bid stack, since the price has already been confidentially arranged between seller and buyer. The result again is to bump the most expensive spot market bids off the top of the stack and thus lower the wholesale clearing price.
Retail Competition
Retail distribution utilities, like NStar and National Grid, to name just two, must serve any customers that do not buy their supply form a competitive retail marketer. So they will solicit offers to buy wholesale power through PPAs and the spot market for sufficient power to meet their deliveries to you and me on a minute-to-minute basis. The aggregate of the cost of their wholesale power purchases is passed on and is shown on your bill as the "generation charge."
For example, from the NStar web site [1] we see the generation charge for residential customers is 12.7 cents per kilowatt-hour (cents/kWh) for the period from January to June, 2009. This represents the aggregate of their wholesale costs from the PPAs and spot market from which they choose to buy their power.
One public estimate of the cost of electricity from the Cape Wind project is found in the final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) [2] issued by the Minerals Management Service which is 12.2 cents/kWh. That is clearly not twice the wholesale price of NStar's 12.7 cents/kWh. And such price for wind power could be fixed for the long term and thereby provide a hedge against long-term run-ups in fossil fuel costs that would be reflected in future market prices.
And while Cape Wind may represent only a very small percentage of NStar's or other retail suppliers overall portfolio who choose to purchase wind power, it will place downward pressure on electricity clearing prices (to the benefit of you and me) during every hour that it runs.
Conclusion
Fixed-price long-term power purchase agreements can be arranged over 10 to 20 years for wind power where the price of fuel is known (zero) are of benefit to all to stabilize the cost of electricity in the face of unpredictable fossil fuel prices.
We are certainly a nation at hazard relying on sources of oil and natural gas from unfriendly and unstable foreign sources. The heavy reliance on these two fuels for generating power set the clearing price of electricity for 80% of all hours in New England [3].
Wind power will always lower the price of electricity, both long and short term, and with no harmful emissions. It certainly will not double the price of your electricity.
By Charles Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Vice President, Clean Power Now
Footnotes
[1] The NStar web site is: http://www.nstaronline.com/residential/account_services/rates_tariffs/basic_service.asp#Monthly
[2] Final Environmental Impact Statement, Cape Wind Energy Project, Minerals Management Service, Appendix F, Table 1. January, 2009.
[3] "Ensuring Long Term Reliability of New England's Regional Electricity System," Gordon van Welie, President and CEO, ISO NE, March 30, 2006, Platts Northeast Power Markets Forum.
About Clean Power Now
Clean Power Now is a non-profit grassroots organization informing citizens and empowering them to support viable renewable energy projects and policies, and to secure their local and regional benefits.
We believe that the timely development of such projects, in conjunction with energy efficiency and conservation, will bring about a clean, healthy environment, an improved economy and a more secure, sustainable America.
Our immediate focus is to increase citizen support of offshore wind power in Nantucket Sound.
The end of the age of oil generated electricity
Allow me to share with readers some pertinent facts of the oil fueled steam powered Canal plant. This was the most efficient oil fired steam power plant in the age when it was constructed in 1978. But times have changed. Modern natural gas fired combustion turbine plants are much more efficient now.
Specifically, the efficiency of Canal's unit 1, a base load unit is 38%. Unit 2, a cycling unit is 34%. And if unit 2 is fired with natural gas its efficiency is only 32%. Compare that to a gas fired combustion turbine plant where the efficiency is over 50%. Almost half the generating plants in New England are now gas fired turbine plants. The hand writing is on the wall.
Before the world wide recession set in, when the price of crude oil was $140 a barrel, the cost of fuel alone (not including salaries and maintenance, taxes, etc) to generate electricity at Canal was about 15 cents per kWh. For a natural gas plant it was about 6 cents per kWh, for a coal plant about 2 cents, and a nuclear plant about a half-cent per kWh. Of course for a hydro plant or a wind farm, the fuel cost is zero. Most of the cost of generating electricity in a fossil powered plant is in the price of the fuel, about 60%.
Although the recession has drastically, but temporarily, lowered the cost of oil and natural gas, most believe the prices will escalate again as the recession eases and world-wide demand for these diminishing fuels becomes most evident.
As I suggested to the Sandwich selectmen, the stark reality is that without a "Reliability Must Run" status for the plant it just can't compete in a deregulated competitive whole sale market. The ISO NE ruling to stop the "Out of Merit" payments of some $100 million a year won't close the plant, competition will.
On top of the issue of the price of fuel oil and an outdated inefficient plant, the EPA ruling on the need for cooling towers that cost some $200 million to build, may be the death knell of the plant.
As a resident of Sandwich and as I look at the 500 foot Canal stack from my study window as I write this, it seems that Mirant has three options. Abandon the plant, worst case. Repower the plant with natural gas turbines, a good idea. Or sell the plant to someone who will.
Repowering both Canal units would preserve the tax base, provide New England much less expensive wholesale electricity, essentially eliminate the most unhealthful pollutants of sulfur dioxide, its formation of downstream fine particulate matter, and mercury. And in addition it would dramatically reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions by more than half, from the current level of about 1,800 pounds per MWh to about 800 pounds per MWh. In the public interest, eliminating the "out of merit" payments would reduce the wholesale price of electricity by an estimated one to two cents per kilowatt-hour in the southeastern region of Massachusetts.
The inevitable will happen. I believe Mirant must sell the plant or repower it with natural gas as the most expedient and pragmatic solution to their problem of obsolescence.
Change is happening. The age of oil fueled electrical generation is coming to an end. The age of renewable energy is just beginning. Natural gas fired power plants are the gap filler for the surge to renewables.
Wind, out of the Blue
By Chris Stimpson and Chuck Kleekamp
The excitement on Cape Cod was palpable on the weekend leading up to the MMS hearings on the Cape Wind project, and not just at the thought of dueling minstrels at the microphone. To the unbounded joy of the wind farm opponents on stage, the Deus ex Machina of Blue H USA appeared from the wings with perfect timing to state that you can have wind power without seeing it.
Except that this can't happen for some time, even though Ray Dackerman, Blue H USA general manager has said "It's here now," referring to their technology of a floating wind farm 23 miles south of Martha's Vineyard [1]. And Cape Wind's opponents embraced the idea as an alternative to Cape Wind [2].
Some background is in order. Offshore windfarms support their turbines on fixed hollow towers called monopoles. Total installed cost, including the turbine, is between $2 million and $3million per megawatt, based on European experience with 15 offshore windfarms.
In 2002, Norway's Norsk Hydro Oil & Energy [3] started a pilot project called "Hywind". The concept, to float a 3-megawatt turbine in 400 feet of water tethered with cables to anchors, would cost over $7 million per megawatt.
After six years, the Hywind project has yet to be installed.
"Making floating offshore foundations commercially viable is a significant technological challenge," said Andreas Nauen [4], head of the Siemens PG Wind Power division, the turbine supplier [5] for Hywind. And Bech Gjørv of Norsk Hydro adds: "The goal [of wind farms with 200 turbines] is far in the future, but if we're to succeed in 10-15 years, we have to start the work today." [6].
And so to Blue H, a young Netherlandish company with a patented "tension leg platform" solution, in which anchor chains apply a constant tension to a buoyant, semi-submerged structure to keep the platform level and the turbine tower straight. Last December, 12 miles off the coast of southern Italy in 350 feet of water, the company installed what it termed a "large-scale prototype": an unconventional, 80-kilowatt, fast-spinning 2-bladed turbine delivering zero electrical power [7]. A moment's math tells us that one would need 45 of these to equal the rated output of just one of the 3.6 megawatt turbines planned for Cape Wind.
Martin Reilly, the local Blue H spokesman, claims that "Deep water technology now exists, and it's viable. The cost of generation will be less than any other offshore wind energy generation project proposed to date at this time."[8]. But if Fortune 500 companies like Norsk Hydro and Siemens haven't deployed a single floating prototype in six years and predict a 10-15 year wait for viability, it's quite a stretch to imagine that Blue H could install a 120-turbine, billion-dollar wind farm 45 miles off New Bedford now, qualifying it as an "alternative" to Cape Wind.
And in fact, they can't. In its next round of interim activity the Minerals Management Service (MMS) will evaluate over 40 applications for authorization to erect resource data collection facilities and technology testing only [9]. Offshore wind turbine technology testing will not be authorized through this interim policy, and commercial wind farms will not even be considered [10]. So Blue H has applied to launch their anchored platform supporting a monopole tower topped with dummy weights simulating a wind turbine to test the mooring system [11]. However, MMS may limit the number of authorizations under this policy. Perhaps an MMS permit will go to Blue H, or perhaps to others.
When asked about a likely in-service date for their completed project, Reilly offered a date of 2013 [12]. This suggests a shorter permitting process than Cape Wind, using known technology, has had to endure even to this point. Even Walt Musial, a principal engineer at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory has said: "Blue H appears very serious about this, but it cannot yet be viewed as an alternative to the kind of reliable energy Cape Wind would be able to produce." Regarding floating turbine technology he said: "It hasn't been proven yet. It's very important people's expectations don't get beyond the demonstration project level."[13].
Nonetheless, as a citizens' organization supporting viable renewable energy projects and policies, Clean Power Now has always undertaken to evaluate utility-scale wind power proposals, endorsing those determined viable. So while we welcome Blue H's efforts, we will refrain from endorsing until we have at least seen the company's Expanded Environmental Notice Form and details of its engineering design.
While Blue H is working for the future, we believe it is prudent to follow the European example and build our first offshore wind farm with proven technology, starting in the shallow waters of Nantucket Sound before working in the unknowns of the deep.
Christopher Stimpson,
Board Member, Clean Power Now
Charles W. Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Vice President, Clean Power Now
Footnotes:
1. "Floating wind turbines on horizon?" by Karen Jeffrey, Cape Cod Times, March 10, 2008.
2. "Timely Entry for Deep-Water Project," by Mike Seccombe, Vineyard Gazette, March 14, 2008.
3. Norsk Hydro Oil & Energy Company is a Fortune 500 company founded in 1905 with 36,000 employees.
4. "Danish based Siemens Wind Power to supply wind turbine for Hydro project," Invest in Denmark, June 27, 2007.
5. Siemens Power Generation of Germany is a premier international power generation company with 2006 sales of 10 billion Euros and 36,400 employees.
6. Hydro Web Site, Nov. 2, 2005: http://www.hydro.com/en/press_room/news/archive/2005_11/hywind_en.html
7. A telephone conversation by Kleekamp with Ray Dackerman, Blue H USA general manager, on March 20, 2008.
8. Deep-water wind farm plan floated off Vineyard," by Joshua Balling, The Inquirer and Mirror, March 13, 2008
9. Number of applications verified by phone with Ms. Maureen Bornholdt, MMS, on March 28, 2008.
10. This interim policy is listed in the Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 214, Tuesday, November 6, 2007 p. 62673-62675. Title: "MMS Request for Information and Nominations of Areas for Leases Authorizing Alternative Energy Resource Assessment and Technology Testing Activities."
11. A conversation at the CPN office with Mr. Reilly on March 19, 2008.
12. A conversation at the CPN office with Mr. Reilly on March 19, 2008.
13. "Timely Entry for Deep-Water Project," by Mike Seccombe, Vineyard Gazette, March 14, 2008.
Wind and the Cost of Electricity
Cape Wind's electricity will compete in the market
Oil-generated electricity's cost will continue to increase
The overwhelmingly favorable Mineral Management Service (MMS) draft statement on the Cape Wind project on Nantucket Sound states that the proposed site at Horseshoe Shoal has the lowest estimated cost of energy, equal to 12.2 cents per kilowatt-hour, when compared to all alternative sites [1]. This is in fact less than the NStar rate to you for generated power in February, 2008, which is 12.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, a price that closely reflects the actual price of the wholesale market for the same time period [2].
The latest passion to grip critics of Cape Wind is a misinterpreted MMS statement regarding the profitability of the undertaking. In their propaganda campaign they are saying that Cape Codders will pay double or triple for their power if the wind farm is built [3]. A clarifying statement by the MMS author of the economic considerations, Robert Mense, said: "References to the apparent profitability of development at any of the sites could therefore be misleading, and will not be made in the draft EIS." [4]
Once again it's time to cite the facts, the most obvious of which is that Cape Wind will not be able to sell their power into the wholesale market at an uncompetitive price.
To address this issue one must recall that electrical utilities were deregulated several years ago when they were required to sell off their power plants. The intent being to usher in competition, provide consumer choice, and lower prices.
So now merchant power plants, such as Mirant's Canal station or Dominion's Brayton Point, or even Cape Wind's offshore wind farm, must sell their power into a competitive wholesale market. Sales directly to you, the retail customer are then made by retail distributors like NStar, National Grid or the Cape Light Compact's current supplier (ConEdison Solutions) that offer electricity in a competitive retail market where you, the end user, may choose the lowest cost provider, if that's your basis of decision.
Any merchant plant, including Cape Wind, has two ways to sell into that wholesale market. One is to make a negotiated and often confidential "power purchase agreement (PPA)" with a retail distributor for some or all of its generated power over a fixed period of time. Of course, retail distributors typically want to buy the lowest cost power so they can compete for retail customers like you and me. About three-quarters of all wholesale power in New England is sold through these PPAs.
Alternatively, the merchant plant can offer some, or all, of its generated power to the wholesale hourly spot market administered by the Independent System Operator of the New England grid system (ISO NE). In this case the offer goes into a bid stack arranged from low to high. When the cumulative offers meet the expected load a "clearing price" is established. Those below the clearing price get their power dispatched (injected) into the grid, those above, do not (no sale). This scheme ensures the lowest cost wholesale power is available to the retail distributors, and hence to you.
Of note is the fact that all merchant plants that are dispatched are paid the clearing price regardless of their offer. For example, if a plant offers its power at $35 per megawatt-hour and the clearing price is $65 per megawatt-hour, the plant will be paid $65. And to ensure that renewable power such as wind and hydro is always dispatched ISO rules allow it to be bid into the bottom of the stack with zero fuel cost.
This means the most expensive wholesale offers are bumped off the top of the bid stack thereby lowering the clearing price and ultimately saving you money. Of course the wind and hydro providers will be paid the clearing price for their power, whatever it may be. Also of note is the fact that negotiated PPAs are always dispatched as if bid at zero cost. The prices in these PPAs therefore do not increase the ISO NE clearing prices and in fact can lower it.
All of this means that wind power will compete with conventional sources on a wholesale level and it will always lower the market cost of generated electricity to you, the end customer. Indeed, the savings resulting from this displacement would accrue to electric customers, and are estimated by the Massachusetts Energy Facility Siting Board to be $25 million per year for New England customers [5].
While the price of electricity and its long term stability is important to many, perhaps the most significant consideration regarding the wind farm is the impact on our nation's energy independence and global warming. This first offshore project will replace electricity from fossil fueled power plants avoiding the consumption of some 100 million gallons of oil, equivalent to 20 Bouchard barges like the one that ran aground in Buzzards Bay or 5 LNG tankers like the one disabled off Chatham, all delivering fuel to generate electricity. Likewise it will avoid the emission of about a million tons of carbon dioxide, equivalent to taking 175,000 cars off the road each year [6]. These are the real savings.
Charles W. Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Vice President, Clean Power Now
and
Christopher Stimpson,
Board Member, Clean Power Now
Footnotes:
[1] MMS Appendix F: by Robert Mense, p. 17.
[2] NSTAR web site reference as of January, 2008, residential variable rate. As a regulated distribution company, NSTAR purchases electricity from suppliers and passes that power cost directly to customers, with no profit to NSTAR.
[3] "Cape Wind clears environmental hurdle," by Jason Graziadei, Nantucket Inquirer and Mirror, January 17, 2008. Also radio ads.
[4] MMS Response to Peer reviews, pages 11 and 12 of Response in Appendix F.
[5] Massachusetts Energy Facility Siting Board, 2005. Based on "The Cape Wind Project: Impact on New England Electricity Market Prices," February 2002, Analysis by La Capra Associates. "This analysis essentially assumes that natural gas and oil prices will be in line with those forecast in the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) "Annual Energy Outlook 2002" (developed in late 2001). For example, natural gas prices are estimated at approximately $3.4/MMBtu in 2005." It is of note that the natural gas prices are now in the range of $8 to $9/MMBtu therefore the savings from this displacement would now be in the order of $50 to $60 million per year.
[6] Statement of Secretary Ian Bowles, Secretary of Environmental Affairs for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. March 29, 2007.
Wind, the Beginning of the End of Oil Generated Electricity
Why oil is on the way out for New England's electric grid
But almost 25 percent of our power still comes from it
Abundant wind power, with no fuel cost, is destined to replace the most expensive source of electrical generation - and that is from oil fueled power plants. Allow me to explain. In New England, unlike the rest of the country, oil generated electricity plays a large but diminishing role. Almost a quarter of the installed capacity of all power plants here use oil as fuel [1].
Understanding how electricity is dispatched on the grid is crucial to the explanation. The Independent System Operator called ISO New England, based in Holyoke, is responsible for the reliable operation of the power system by dispatching power plant production and providing a fair wholesale market to sell and buy power.
Dispatch is regulated by a day-ahead hourly bid stack with offers from merchant power plants arranged from lowest bid to highest. The unit of trade is the megawatt-hour (MWh). That's a thousand kilowatt-hours, a unit more familiar to most of us and enough to run a modest home for about two months. As the New England load for each hour is matched with offers, a "clearing price" is established by ISO at the point where the expected load exactly meets that level of offers. All plants offering power below the clearing price are allowed to dispatch (inject) their power onto the grid. Those above, are not. This assures the lowest cost for all consumers. Since power cannot be stored on the grid, the load must be exquisitely balanced with power dispatched at every moment.
What is not perceived by most of the public is the fact that this so called "clearing price" is paid to all providers of power that get dispatched. This means for example, a power plant owner who offers power at $40/MWh for a period when the clearing price becomes $80/MWh, that owner will be paid $80/MWh as will all others whose power is dispatched.
Six years ago the cost of oil and natural gas were roughly equivalent in price per unit of energy, with coal at about half that. Since then, oil and gas have dramatically increased by a factor of roughly four with respect to the price of coal. Knowing the efficiency of generating plants [2] one can calculate the cost of fuel alone to generate electric power. For oil fueled plants it's now at least $93/MWh [3]. For modern natural gas plants, about $48/MWh [4]. And for coal plants, some $18/MWh [5]. It's obvious who's making the most profit as who is being squeezed.
The impact of more costly oil has been to dramatically diminish production from the region's large oil generating plants. For example, the oil-fired Canal Plant in Sandwich (1,120 MW) had a capacity factor (actual production divided by maximum possible production) of 58 percent in the late 1990s consuming some 8 million barrels of oil a year and producing around 6 million MWh. Incidentally, that oil consumption rate is equivalent to almost two days production of all the oil wells in the continental United States for this one power plant in our back yard.
However, last year the Canal plant, the third largest in Massachusetts, was operating at a capacity factor of only about 17 percent producing some 1.7 million MWh [6] by consuming about 2.3 million barrels of oil (96 million gallons). Compared to the expected output of the Cape Wind project of 1.6 million MWh, one wonders if the Canal plant could simply be replaced.
Further north, at the Salem Harbor plant, the fifth largest in the state, where their oil fired Unit #4 (436 MW), which is bigger that all three of its coal units combined, was down to a capacity factor of just 5 percent [7]. And most surprising, the oil fired Unit #4 (446 MW), at Brayton Point, the second largest plant in the state, was down to 1 percent [8]. It is simply turned off most of the year. Currently coal profitably fuels the other three units at both those power plants.
But for wind and hydro plants, the cost of fuel is zero. By ISO rules, these zero-cost fuel generators can bid in at the bottom of the stack; hence are always dispatched [9]. And when they are, they bump off the top the most expensive bids which are almost always from the oil-fueled power plants, and next, from natural gas units [10]. This saves all consumers money by lowering the clearing price of wholesale electricity while providing a competitive return, which is the "clearing price" to wind and hydro plants. Savings for the New England region from the Cape Wind project alone could be some $50 million a year [11].
For a nation addicted to oil, the importance of the impact of utility-scale wind power on national security, energy independence and sustainability cannot be overlooked as it replaces imported oil first and then natural gas. Certainly 20 percent of New England's electricity can be reasonably generated from wind [12]. The avoidance of a million tons of carbon dioxide from oil burners by the Cape Wind project alone, in addition to thousands of tons of unhealthful sulfur and nitrogen oxides, is reason to be optimistic about the future of offshore wind in New England.
As this flagship project leads the way to more offshore projects in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, I believe it will be not only the beginning of the end, but the coup de grâce of base load oil generation.
By the way, the Canal Plant is for sale, along with the rest of Mirant's plants [13].
Charles W. Kleekamp, retired engineer and vice president of Clean Power Now.
[Footnotes]
1. ISO NE Update, Capitol Hill Briefing, Dec. 6, 2006.
2. Efficiency is revealed in a parameter called the heat rate (in BTU/kWh), that is the number of BTUs required to product a kW of electrical power. The heat rate for an oil fueled plant like Canal is 10,164 BTU/kWh, for a coal plant it is about 10,500 BTU/kWh, for a modern combined cycle gas turbine plant it is about 6,700 BTU/kWh.
3. Based on a price of $57.48 for a barrel of 1% sulfur residual fuel oil at New York on 7/31/07. Source: EIA. Note, lower sulfur fuel oil can be about $10 a barrel more. In January 2002, the price was $14.78/barrel.
4. Based on a price of $6.11 for a million BTUs of natural gas at the Henry Hub in Louisiana on July 31, 2007; source, EIA. Add pipeline shipping charge of about $1/million BTU. In January 2002 the price was $2.02/million BTU.
5. Based on a price of $1.78 for a million BTUs of coal for electric plants on April 30, 2007. Source: EIA Table 9.10.
6. Interview at Canal Plant on March 22, 2007.
7. Salem Harbor Station 2005-2006 Emission Report, Jan. 29, 2007.
8. Interview at Brayton Point on March 29, 2007.
9. ISO rule on dispatch of zero cost fuel generators, "Electricity Costs and Pricing in New England's Power Market," February 2006; page 2 of 3.
10. Oil and natural gas set the clearing price 80 percent of all hours; Source: ISO NE, "Ensuring Long Term Reliability of New England's Regional Electricity System," Gordon van Welie, President, March 30, 2006.
11. A savings of $25 million was based on bumping natural gas units with an estimate of natural gas priced at $3.4/mmBTU for 2005. Source: La Capra Associates, Feburary 2002. The price of natural gas as of September 2007 is in the range of $6 to $7/mmBTU, double the price estimate of 2005, hence double the savings.
12. "Offshore Wind Energy Potential for the United States," Walt Musial, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, May 19, 2005. The New England region has an offshore wind resource of 10,300 MW in relatively shallow water up to 30 meters deep. This excludes area inside 5 nautical miles of shore and most of the area for the Rhode Island initiative of 1,150 MW. Source: Table 6-6 of "RIWINDS Phase I: Wind Energy Siting Study," April 2007. Note the current installed capacity New England is 31,000 MW.
13. "Mirant Corp. ponders sale of Sandwich plant," by George Brennan, Cape Cod Times, April 10, 2007.
About Clean Power Now
Clean Power Now is a non-profit volunteer organization that informs citizens and empowers them to support viable renewable energy projects and policies, and to secure their local and regional benefits.
We believe that the timely development of such projects, in conjunction with energy efficiency and conservation, will bring about a clean, healthy environment, an improved economy and a more secure, sustainable America.
Our immediate focus is to increase citizen support of offshore wind power in Nantucket Sound.The Allure of German Wind
But... he doesn't like it in the shallow waters of Nantucket Sound. "[He's] concerned about the project's impact on the environment there," said Mark Forest, Delahunt's spokesman [1]. Pardon us while we mention that after five years and thousands of pages of reports on the environmental impacts of the Cape Wind project it has been determined time and time again that the many positive public benefits far outweigh any negative environmental impact.
So what to do? Delahunt will ask German experts to assess the feasibility of coastal sites in deep water here, reports Sue Reinert in The Patriot Ledger [2]. Albeit the Germans haven't built any offshore windfarms yet. But not to worry. "If we can interest them in Massachusetts... we could be talking not only about the development of a renewable energy site, but also of binging new jobs to this area," Delahunt said [3].
It's as if the German government will donate $65 million [4] to Massachusetts for an experimental deepwater windfarm in Massachusetts as they are at home. Nice try, but really?
The reality of deepwater wind
Experimental? Well... yes. Hopefully our seemingly wind energy embracing Congressman knows that this is the first German offshore project. It's called Borkum West, a joint research program launched by the government and energy utilities Vattenfall, E.ON, EWE AG, and wind-turbine manufacturers REpower and Multibrid. The utilities are adding $165 million to build the small 12-turbine wind farm in water up to 100 feet deep in the Baltic Sea some 35 miles from land [5].
But that's not all... (to mimic the typical TV come-on). The cost of that long landfall cable will be nearly $240 million with another donation of $40 million by the German State [6].
So what's the price of the Borkum experimental windfarm? The total cost is $470 million for this 60 megawatt (MW) project and reveals a unit investment of almost $8 million per MW installed.
The German project is not unlike the Talisman experiment off Scotland in water 150 feet deep at a price of about $6 million/MW installed [7]. It's another government sponsored research project where much of the cost is in individual four-legged lattice type steel foundations that weigh 1,250 tons [8] for each turbine. And the Talisman price tag doesn't include a landfall cable.
Not to throw water on costly research projects, which is always a necessary and commendable step to future progress, but there needs to be a word of prudence. In a cautious statement Talisman Energy has said "current forecasts for electricity prices will never render this Demonstrator Project economic." [9]
Back from the future
Hopefully, while Delahunt is in Europe he will stop in Denmark, Sweden, and England where he could examine fourteen operating shallow water windfarms and another eleven under construction [10]. With 15 years of operational experience with negligible environmental impacts, these economically viable projects are indeed models for the world at large.
Shallow water windfarms in Europe at depths up to 60 feet have established a unit expenditure of about $2.5 million/MW installed [11]. That's about the same as expected for the Cape Wind project. At that level, a reasonable profit can be made without government subsidies for construction. And it's being done now with a maturing mono-pole technology.
It's a long reach to believe that one can jump to deepwater wind at three times the capital cost believing the investment can be significantly reduced through price reductions on tripod or quadra-pile steel towers and costly undersea cable technology [12]. Even the economic tradeoffs of stronger winds far offshore must be balanced with impediments to servicing turbines in higher wave heights that result in a lower availability due to extended down time.
Must we wait?
The question is should we be a victim of procrastination waiting 10 to 20 years for the deployment of economically viable deepwater wind energy systems both here and in Europe?
In the mean time, we can make significant progress to mitigate global warming on a local basis by avoiding a million tons of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fueled generators by building the Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound now [13]. As Nathanael Greene, senior policy analyst, Natural Resources Defense Council says, "the Cape Wind project is, to our knowledge, the largest single source of supply side reductions in CO2 currently proposed in the US."
Progress from shallow to gradually deeper alternative sites off New England as listed in both the Army Corps and MMS documents [14] await only proposals and permitting decisions from federal agencies.
Alas, if in 20 years deepwater wind is firmly established as an economically viable source of electricity, the early shallow water projects can be removed. In fact a decommissioning bond is required as part of the federal lease for Cape Wind.
We believe it's essential to begin in Nantucket Sound with current proven technology and evolve to deeper water as the learning curve levels out to where the inevitable price increase of diminishing fossil fuels and their expensive emission controls makes more costly deepwater wind viable.
We do agree with Representative Delahunt that ‘‘Wind is to New England what oil is to Saudi Arabia.'' [15]. However, it would be a tragedy to wait a decade or two for unfounded reasons and the unknown economic advantages of deepwater wind when we can start now.
Barbara Hill
Executive Director, Clean Power Now
Charles Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Vice President, Clean Power Now
_____________________________
Footnotes:
1. "Delahunt on wind power mission: In Germany, he'll discuss feasibility of deep-water projects off N.E. coast," by Sue Reinert, The Patriot Ledger, January 23, 2007.
2. Ibid., Ledger
3. "Going deep to renew energy," by Karen Jeffery, Cape Cod Times, January 17, 2007.
4. "Germany eyes offshore wind," UPI, December 1, 2006.
5. Ibid., UPI
6. Ibid., UPI
7. "The Allure of deep-water wind power," by Charles Kleekamp, The Upper Cape Codder, June 1, 2006. Talisman is using the same Repower 5 MW turbines as proposed for 6 of the Borkum turbines.
8. "Beatrice Wind Farm Demonstrator Project Scoping Report," Talisman Energy, Section 3.4 Method of Fixing Substructure to Seabed, p. 10 of 57.
9. Q&A Talisman Energy, http://www.beatricewind.co.uk/
10. List of operating offshore windfarms in Europe. Denmark: Vindeby 1991, Tuno Knob 1995, Middelgrunden 2001, Horns Rev 2002, Nysted 2003, Samsoe 2003. Sweden: Gotland-Bockstigen 1998, Utgrunden 2001, Yttre Stengrund 2001. Ireland: Arklow Bank 2003. United Kingdom: North Hoyle 2003, Scroby Sands 2004, Barrow Offshore 2006, Kentish Flats 2005. List of offshore windfarms under construction now and scheduled during 2007: Sweden: Oresund Lillgrund. Netherlands: Egmond NWS, Windpark Q7-WP. United Kingdom: Inner Dowsing, Lynn Skegness, Gunfleet Sands, Rhyl Flats, Burbo Bank, Teeside, Robin Rigg, Shell Flat
11. "Offshore Wind Energy Potential for the United States," Walt Musial, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Wind Powering America - Annual State Summit, May 19, 2005, Slide #4: Shallow offshore costs range from 1500€/kW to 2200 €/kW, Horns Rev ~1650€/kW. In U.S. dollars, that's about $1.95 to $2.86 million/MW with Horns Rev at $2.15 million/MW.
12. An example is the Cross Sound Cable between Connecticut and Long Island constructed in 2002 is a high-voltage direct current (HVDC) system. It is 25 miles long and can transmit a maximum power of 330 MW. It cost $150 million.
13. "Findings of the Massachusetts Energy Facility Siting Board," EFSB 02-2, July 2, 2004, p. 168.
14. List of alternate sites just off the Massachusetts coast mentioned are: Tuckernuck Shoal, Handkerchief Shoal, South of Tuckernuck Island, Nantucket Shoals, Monomoy Shoals and East of Nauset Beach.
15. "Going deep to renew energy," by Karen Jeffrey, Cape Cod Times, January 17, 2007.
About Clean Power Now
Clean Power Now is a non-profit grassroots organization that informs citizens and empowers them to support viable renewable energy projects and policies, and to secure their local and regional benefits.
We believe that the timely development of such projects, in conjunction with energy efficiency and conservation, will bring about a clean, healthy environment, an improved economy and a more secure, sustainable America.
Our immediate focus is to increase citizen support of offshore wind power in Nantucket Sound.
About
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E., Ret. is a past president of Clean Power Now and frequently comments on renewable energy and the proposed windfarm on Nantucket Sound.
Archives
- December 2010 (1)
- November 2010 (1)
- August 2010 (1)
- June 2009 (1)
- March 2009 (1)
- January 2009 (1)
- April 2008 (1)
- March 2008 (1)
- September 2007 (1)
- February 2007 (1)
- January 2007 (1)
- August 2006 (2)
- July 2006 (1)
- June 2006 (3)
- May 2006 (1)
- April 2006 (1)
- December 2005 (1)
Local Blogs
- Newest Blog Posts
- Nor'easter Blues
- Inside Ball
- A Doctor You Can Talk To
- Cape Native
- Politicus
- Sandwich Watchdog
- Latimer on Law & Politics
- College Chat with Christine Chapman
- Cape Yoga
- Dandy Looney
- Hyannis Youth & Community Center Official Blog
- What's Green with Betsy
- Long Bridge Runner
- Entering Falmouth
- Ned Sonntag
- Cape Cod Rock Hopper
Become a CapeCodToday Blogger!
Are you passionate about your community? Do you blog or at least harbor thoughts of doing so?
If so, CapeCodToday.com would like to host your blog on our CapeCodToday weblog publishing platform.
Blog Newsfeed
CapeCodToday uses standard web "newsfeeds" (RSS) to automatically update the latest blog entries in your browser or newsreader.
Use any of the links below in your newsreader or web browser to get "Footnotes" postings delivered to you, or use the RSS icon in your browser's address bar.
