The many letters to the editor in recent issues of the B.I. Times regarding Deepwater Wind make for interesting reading.
After more than three years of being ‘students’ of Deepwater Wind, many of us who oppose Deepwater do so because of our extensive research and analysis of what is actually proposed and what is in the authorizing legislation, and because of our participation in the many public processes associated with this project both on Block Island and on the mainland.
There could be much written in response to letters from Deepwater supporters. I always read their reasons for support with a genuine desire to gain insight and understanding, and sometimes they would be surprised to know that opponents may actually agree with them in some instances.
However, what is disappointing and causes divisiveness in our island community is when misleading information is presented as fact, such as writing that “a majority of annual electricity will come from the windfarm.” That is just not the case! The island’s greatest electricity demand (the majority) occurs during the summer months. Should Deepwater proceed, the high peak demand will be met from mainland electricity which is not necessarily “green.”
Ratepayers can choose a green option that means they are willing to pay more per kilowatt for renewables (in support of green energy) but that does not mean that what comes through to them is in any way green. Electricity just doesn’t flow that way. The only way anyone gets green is if they generate the power themselves.
Secondly, to suggest that BIPCo will burn diesel for “emergency backup only” is wishful thinking.
To my knowledge, there is no document that limits BIPCo to just emergency circumstances. Perhaps BIPCo can clarify the facts for all of us?
|Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding