Greenrock Offshore Wind Location Assessment

September 25, 2023 | 20 Comments

Greenrock released the third study in their offshore wind feasibility study series – an Offshore Wind Location Assessment.

A spokesperson said, “This study was commissioned to help us determine the most technically feasible locations for an offshore wind farm in Bermuda.

Key points from the study are as follows:

  • “The location assessment has been carried out by BVG Associates, who have decades of experience in the offshore wind industry, including in the design of offshore wind turbines.
  • “The study has identified four potential locations that could be suitable for a 60MW offshore wind farm. These generally show good agreement with other work that has been done in this area by the RAB and UCSB.
  • “The study primarily considered technical constraints associated with turbine installation and operation. It also considered a range of environmental and social constraints, based on collaboration with BOPP.
  • “Forecast electricity costs from an offshore wind farm in Bermuda are largely unchanged from previous estimates, and are likely to range from $0.147 – $0.165/kWh. Electricity costs for most sites fall at the lower end of this range, with costs at the higher end of the range expected if the wind farm were to be located at Challenger Bank.
  • “Based on our own analysis of BELCo’s current costs, at the point of generation, offshore wind could provide electricity that is about 30% cheaper than generating electricity from fuel oil.

“The fourth study, an annual energy production analysis using commercially available wind resource data, is currently in progress and will be published in the coming weeks.

Click here to download the Bermuda Offshore Wind: Location Assessment.”

Read More About

Category: All, Environment, News

Comments (20)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Hilarious! says:

    “Based on our own analysis of BELCo’s current costs, at the point of generation, offshore wind could provide electricity that is about 30% cheaper than generating electricity from fuel oil.” – TOO FUNNY! “at the point of generation” is the RED FLAG!

    Who cares about “at the point of generation?” Your $0.147 – $0.165/kWh LCOE estimate (which is not calculated in the linked document but listed as a range in MWh) is a bogus calculation and you know it. What is the cost to consumers? That is what we want to know. Impress everyone by telling the truth for once! Wait, you can’t handle the truth. Just like the RA consultants, hiding the true cost to consumers.

    Why are Greenrock and its members not funding the entire cost of an offshore wind farm? Build it and sell the electricity. bro, how much of your personal money are you willing to contribute to pay for a wind farm?

    Come on. What is the Estimated Consumer kWh Rate (ECkR) cost range that will be delivered to consumers and businesses by BECLO purchasing wind-generated electricity? The ECkR shows all costs involved in delivering electricity to consumers. Examples: Subsidies, tax breaks, guaranteed returns to investors, turbine maintenance, grid connection, Government taxes added in to make up for the lost fossil fuel tax revenue, BELCO’s markup, BELCO’s cost to keep generators on standby, etc.

    As any educated person knows, wind farms must be backed up by fossil fuel-powered generators (at a cost never mentioned) because the wind does not blow 24×7, turbines are shut down for routine maintenance, shut down for storms, not enough demand, not enough wind to turn the blades, repairs, etc.

    Showing the Estimated Consumer kWh Rate (ECkR) and how it was calculated should prove that the overall cost of a wind farm and the future cost of wind turbine-generated electricity to Bermudians is economically oppressive. Release the spreadsheet, name, and list all the costs in the calculation. Name and list all costs NOT included in the calculation and why they were excluded.


    Truth! Offshore wind turbines decarbonize nothing, are bird chum makers, whale killers (as we are seeing in NJ), negatively impact marine life, and are not environmentally friendly. Do your homework.

  2. Ringmaster says:

    Unclear if the projected price per kWh includes the costs of building, maintaining, and eventual replacement. Wind power in most other places has failed miserably without massive government subsidies. On the other hand solar panel prices and battery backup are falling fast.

    • Hilarious! says:

      Not unclear at all – such costs are NEVER included in calculating the LCOE!
      “at the point of generation” is the RED FLAG!
      See my comment above.

  3. Joe Bloggs says:

    Excellent. Does that mean that Greenrock is now going to build wind turbines and sell electricity to Belco?

    • UpRyZa says:

      Lol, good one….


    • Hilarious! says:

      You go Greenrock! Build that windfarm on your own dime.

    • Hilarious! says:

      If you knew anyone on the management team, you would already know the answer to your question. I ask the same question for laughs and giggles.

  4. hey says:

    The finger was ready to go in December 2021.

    At maximum solar production, the facility will provide up to 13% of the Islands energy needs to meet peak demand. My bill has not reduced by 13%, instead, it has increased considerably !!!!!

    Ultimately the money on these government solar projects is made by overseas investors, with someone locally (possibly a minister) making something off it up front.

    This doesn’t benefit Bermudians pockets, it uses our land (or Ocean for wind farm), so it takes away our future. The investors in the finger are the ones who make money, we ended up paying more to Belco, it will be the same for the Wind farm. NO TAXPAYER MONEY SHOULD BE SPENT ON THIS AS THE TAXPAYER DOES NOT BENEFIT.

    • Hilarious! says:

      When it comes to “green energy,” there are many flavors of Kool-Aid being passed around Bermuda. Follow the money.

      FYI, the earth is doing just fine.

      • Joe Bloggs says:

        “FYI, the earth is doing just fine”

        I beg to differ. Look at what is happening at each of the poles. Ways of life that have lasted thousands of years are disappearing in the Arctic Circle. And look at what is happening to Antarctica.

        • Hilarious! says:

          Beg away. Mother Nature is just doing its thing. There is no irrefutable evidence of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) human-caused.

          NEWS FLASH: There is no agreed-upon standard definition of “climate change” by the major organizations such as the AMS, IPCC, NOAA, NASA, and the USGCRP. No agreement from these organizations on what percentage, if any, of alleged global warming is caused by humans (AGW). People with a Ph.D. and decades of subject matter expertise cannot agree on the meaning of simple words. Why?

          I worked on the IPCC reports AR5 & AR6. Those whales don’t swim and would be inadmissible in US Federal Court because the report writers do not follow any replicable scientific methodology in writing the reports. The reports amount to book reports on steroids. Same logic behind why a US federal judge bounced all five of Dr. Mann’s “expert” witnesses.

          Years ago there was a claim that open water was present at the North Pole based upon a North Pole webcam. Global warming! We were all doomed! Then it came out that the webcam had drifted about 15 degrees south because as we all know, the polar ice cap is moving ice. Slight of hand, misinformation, news media hype that was busted big time.

          The earth is doing just fine.

          • Joe Bloggs says:

            “There is no irrefutable evidence …”

            There is no such thing. Only evidence that something is or is not.

            There “is no irrefutable evidence” that Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon, but most of us believe such evidence as there is that he did so.

            • Hilarious! says:

              You dance so poorly. Why do struggle so much over understanding one simple word? Climate scientists always use qualifiers in their research. But from your comments, you have no subject matter expertise.

              Here is a helping hand:

              1. Impossible to refute or disprove; incontrovertible.

              2. Incapable of being refuted or disproved; indisputable.

              3. Undeniable; unable to be disproved or refuted.

              • Joe Bloggs says:

                I know what “irrefutable” means. I also know that there is no such thing as “irrefutable evidence” in science studies. That is the very reason that reputable scientists use qualifiers.

                You are correct that I am not a climate expert. My expertise in science is physics.

        • question says:

          Antarctica has more ice now than it did in 1965.

  5. Other consideration says:

    The alternative suggestion is for the government to consider issuing an expression of interest to create a solar facility at Morgan’s Point. The point area which was a high security storage area and facilities for the sea planes would provide a large area for a solar facility.

    Perhaps time should be spent evaluating this option.

    • Joe Bloggs says:

      “create a solar facility at Morgan’s Point”

      Government does not own Morgan’s Point. How can that work?

      • Hilarious! says:

        I gave the Government a proposal several years ago on how to cost-effectively implement solar energy with a win-win for the Government and consumers. One of three low-cost, quick-to-implement energy savings ideas submitted.

        The Government finally implemented the LED light-bulb idea but not the hot water heater timer and solar panel ideas. I suspect those might resurface before the next election.

  6. Blinded says:

    I see a a facilities charge. Rent , any additional charge that can be concived in the pipeline. Tell me please the estimated REALISTIC total charge to purchase, and install and re install after a hurricane per unit complete, we are not all blind lemmings. Then tell me your cost to produce a kw

Leave a Reply