Dear Sir,

Hats off to the Regulatory Authority for the wind farm town hall.

The one-hour overview presentation was clear and gave an understandable summary of the results of its Feasibility Study analysis of the potential for the project.

For those of us who had done the homework and studied the “discussion document”, the actual presentation was mostly repetition. Perhaps a condensed version could replace the full recitation to allow more discussion time in any future meetings.

The time spent going through questions submitted via the website was well-intentioned, but the questions should have been filtered to exclude those that were actually answered by the presentation itself. Perhaps next time the submitted questions could be answered in writing and the questions and answers included in the handout material.This all left very little time for either questions from the floor or discussion around points raised.

All in all, though, it was a valuable engagement which hopefully will make its way to CITV soon so many more can benefit.

The environmental analysis and site selection approach was not thoroughly explained but was quite exhaustive. Some impacts may have been overstated and a few seemed glossed over, but as was emphasised, “no decisions have been made”, so these should be revisited. The location chosen by the environmental screening was near Murray’s Anchorage and was a difficult balance between cost and impacts. Much more detail must be disclosed as to why other sites were excluded, especially the SW Platform site where larger turbines could be used.

The economic analysis, however, did not hold out much hope for a positive outcome, no matter where the site is. The first unfixable problem is that Bermuda does not have strong enough winds on a regular basis. Wind turbines need a certain amount of wind to start up — usually about 7mph — and then they generate more power as the wind increases to its “rated speed”. The problem is that rated speeds are about 28mph and Bermuda’s average wind speed is about 15mph, while almost 90 per cent of the time our winds are well below the rated speed.

At our average wind speeds — half the rated speed — we would not get half the power, but rather 33 per cent. At half of that average speed — about 20 per cent of the time — we get nothing at all. What the feasibility study says is that we will get about one third of the rated power from our wind farm on average. In other words, to harvest 20MW to the grid on average, we must buy turbines with a total capacity of 60MW.

This is simply not enough given the cost.

The second insurmountable issue is that we are small. Our total demand runs to about 100MW. Absorbing half of that from a wind farm whose power may vary 50 per cent from hour to hour is the most we can ask from our grid. Wind farms that we hear about today use machines that generate 15MW from a single turbine. A typical offshore wind farm may consist of 100 such machines. We will be installing 20 machines, which will have a total rating of 60MW. From the point of view of a developer, this hardly qualifies as a serious project.

Adding in the cost factors that come from doing a tiny job, 750 miles at sea in an expensive place gives a result that the absolute basic cost of production would be more than the value of the fuel saved. When all the other extras are added on to carry this cost to the consumers’ billing, the kilowatt-hours from the windmill would be anywhere from 10 per cent to 30 per cent more expensive than a Belco-generated kWh. Adding that on to what is already among the highest kWh prices in the world is a non-starter.

The only rationale for investing in renewables is to reduce costs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Bermuda’s total GHG emissions are about one thousandth of 1 per cent of the world’s emissions. We do not represent a serious global impact in terms of climate change. This wind farm hopes to reduce that figure by about 20 per cent. That would translate to a global reduction of one five-thousandth 1 per cent at a cost of about $400 million to the Bermuda consumer.

The reality is that if we really wanted to do something to contribute to global GHG reductions, we should do something else — something far more effective — with that money:

• Invest in a smart grid (for more solar, storage, vehicle-to-grid, demand management)

• Mandate peer-to-peer energy trading for large users who install solar or cogeneration in co-operation with others

• Raise the buyback price for solar systems

• Introduce heating, ventilation, air-conditioning and appliance-efficiency standards

• Do a feasibility study for wave energy

• Investigate other zero-carbon options

• Feasibility study for a 20MW dispatchable, walkaway safe, small modular nuclear plant that would deliver power for five to ten cents per kWh (one tenth to one fifth of Belco’s existing price) for the next 20 years without refuelling. (Such systems will be commercial in the next ten years)

The recommendation that we spend another $4 million to refine the wind data and study the sea floor for a wind farm project is a waste of funds, money that should be directed elsewhere. More accurate wind data will not increase the output figures by more than 5 per cent to 10 per cent, and that will not change the final cost picture. Investigating the sea floor may save a developer some money, but will also not improve the final analysis.

The purpose of a feasibility study is to provide an early evaluation as to whether a project will be viable or not. If the project is viable, then further design work is pursued.

Sometimes the process is abused and so-called feasibility studies are done actually to justify pursuing projects whether or not they actually are worthwhile.

In this case, it is clear that this project is not and cannot be made viable, either economically or in terms of GHG reduction.

We must move on to other options.

JAN CARD

Smith’s