Tonight, about a dozen Portsmouth residents attended a 2-hour Town Council workshop (with Sylvia Wedge of the School Committee) to hear a presentation on a potential wind turbine by the Economic Development Committee's renewable energy subcommittee.

The evening kicked off with a context-setting presentation by Andrew C. Dzykewicz, the chief energy advisor to Governor Carcieri, a new position created just a year ago. In support of the Governor's ambitious goal of getting 20% of the state's energy from renewable sources, Dzykewicz sketched the reality facing RI: "Stop using plasma TVs, build something, or the lights go off. Those are the three options."

Fortunately, Dzykewicz said, RI has a beneficial wind regime, mainly offshore. And with the price of electricity primarily driven by the price of natural gas (with prices in the $.10-.12/kWh range) wind turbines, with their cost of about $.07-.11 kWh, are competitive here. Also possible would be tidal turbines, essentially windmills underwater, like those used in NYC's East River. Finally, there are Energy Services Companies (ESCO) which contract to do energy audits of municipal (or school) buildings, install efficient lighting, HVAC, etc., on a lease arrangement which usually works out to less than the dollar cost of current energy buys. ("Bob [Driscoll]," said Councilor Seveney, "We got an action item here.")

Then the sustainable energy subcommittee talked about the specific proposal they're working on for the Council, a wind turbine sited at the Middle or High School. This is the project for which they received approval for a 1.6m zero-interest bond, and they presented preliminary data that demonstrated a positive cash flow.

Using a year's worth of [1-hr samples] wind data provided by Raytheon, and a year's worth of [30-min] electrical use for the school, the committee demonstrated that a 600 kWh turbine (same size as the Abbey) would show a positive cash flow of about $30k/year, and would pay off the bond in about 12 years, leaving about 8 years of "free" energy on its expected lifespan of 20 years.

There were a few questions from citizens about the noise, and the potential impact on property values. Councilor Seveney reassured everyone that this was only an initial presentation, just the first gate to establish feasibility, and that many opportunities for public input would preceed any decision. The subcommittee promised a formal, detailed proposal with precise cost numbers for meetings in the June timeframe.

While I understand the quality of life issues, I can't resist pointing out the lack of a true apples-to-apples comparison. What is always left out of these discussions is the invisible costs of coal-fired plants upwind, dumping particulates, soot, and mercury on our fields, our watershed, and our children. We need to remember the question, "compared to what" when we evaluate wind power.