To the editor:

There have been many articles and comments regarding the off-shore wind turbine projects off Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard. Most have focused on the benefits of reducing the country’s dependency on fossil fuels, and the positive and negative impacts. However, there has been little attention (especially by the politicians) and proponents of the cost impacts to the consumer.

First, some background. There are several developers of the eight blocks with over 1,000 turbines and towers who have already paid millions to the federal government for the block. Additionally, they have to pay $3 per acre for an annual fee, ($300,000 to $600,000, depending upon the acreage size of the block.) They recover these fees by charging over $41 per KW hour for any electricity generated. The components are purchased from several European manufacturers, shipped to the U.S., the turbines, and extremely large towers, rotor blades (over 800 feet) are assembled, and the platforms and all necessary components are shipped and installed off the Rhode Island shore.

Cables from the platforms are buried under water to an electrical connection (e.g. Brayton Point or Cape Cod in Massachusetts, Quonset Point in Rhode Island or on Long Island). Rhode Island will benefit from a small number of platform manufacturing, installation and maintenance jobs. All of the power will be used in Massachusetts, Connecticut, or New York, except for a small amount at Quonset Point.

Presently, several developers have incurred significantly larger costs from the European manufacturers due to inflation and the costs of designing and building these towers and turbines. Several projects have already been cancelled, and the developers have each paid a contract termination fee of over $60 million, in the hope of negotiating much higher supply costs than the $ 41/KWH. The sharp declining in stock prices of these European firms have reflected the higher costs, manufacturing delays, and lower profitability of these projects.

The inevitable conclusion if that IF these projects are ever resumed, the supply cost will be increased; some have predicted that it will triple (for reference, the price of an existing project off Coastal Virginia is about $780/KWH). A plausible price estimate for any new contract will be over $150/KWH. This must be recovered by a combination of higher prices to the consumer, larger subsidies from the government, or general income and sales taxes by all citizens, even those who do not consume the electricity. 

At the December 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Dubai, several officials expressed the view that the goal of a “fossil fuel free” is unrealistic. The 70,000 attendees learned that 22 countries, including the U.S., learned from the UN International Atomic Energy Agency that a better, cheaper, non-polluting, lower carbonization, alternate source of energy is nuclear fission in the near term, and nuclear fusion in the long term.

Hopefully, the government legislators and regulators will select nuclear energy the preferred solution, rather than disrupting our oceans with the massive number of off-shore turbines that will result in much higher prices to both businesses and individuals. 

Emil T. Cipolla

20 Nina Road

Portsmouth