Hubbry Logo
Block Island Wind FarmBlock Island Wind FarmMain
Open search
Block Island Wind Farm
Community hub
Block Island Wind Farm
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Block Island Wind Farm
Block Island Wind Farm
Block Island Wind Farm
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Block Island Wind Farm is the first commercial offshore wind farm in the United States,[5] located 3.8 mi (6.1 km) from Block Island, Rhode Island in the Atlantic Ocean. The five-turbine, 30 MW project was developed by Deepwater Wind, now known as Ørsted US Offshore Wind.

Key Information

Construction began in 2015, and in late summer 2016, five Alstom Haliade 150-6MW turbines were erected. Operations were launched in December 2016.[4] It is the largest project using wind power in Rhode Island.

Design and capacity

[edit]
Location of Block Island

Block Island Wind Farm was originally a project of Deepwater Wind[6] to be located about 3.3 nmi (6.1 km; 3.8 mi) southeast of Block Island,[7] which was expected to produce more than 125,000 megawatt hours of electricity annually. Power is transmitted from the turbines to the electric grid along a 21 mi (34 km) transmission submarine power cable buried under the ocean floor, making landfall north of Scarborough Beach in Narragansett, Rhode Island. The structures were designed by Alstom Wind, stand 600 ft (180 m) high, and can withstand a Category 3 storm.[8][9][10] The system connects New Shoreham, Rhode Island (coterminous with Block Island) to the electrical power grid for the first time, allowing it to transition from using diesel generators.[11] Gulf Island Fabrication was interested in building the foundations.[12]

Permits and funding

[edit]

The Block Island Wind Farm was conceived as a larger project extending into neighboring Massachusetts[13] to build a $1.5-billion, 385-megawatt wind farm in federal waters. The 100-turbine project could provide 1.3 terawatt-hours (TW·h) of electricity per year – 15 percent of all electricity used in the state.[14] In 2009, the State of Rhode Island designated Deepwater Wind to begin with pilot projects.[15][16] In the same year, Deepwater signed an agreement with National Grid to sell the power from the wind farm off Block Island, at an initial price of 24.4¢/kWh,[17] with a guaranteed[18] 3.5% annual increase.[19]

The permitting process for the project has been highly controversial, with the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission (RIPUC) initially rejecting the agreement price with National Grid as being excessive to Rhode Island's electricity ratepayers.[20] However, after the Rhode Island General Assembly and Governor Carcieri changed the state law concerning the "commercial reasonability" of contract pricing, the RIPUC voted to approve the key contract.[21] After continuing controversy and appeals, the Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled in July 2011 to uphold the RIPUC decision. Opponents of the project raised an issue about the contract pricing with the United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in August 2012, but in October of the same year, FERC issued a decision that they would not act on the complaint.[22] A total of nine reviews and permits from state federal agencies were acquired, the last in early May 2015.[23] On May 11, 2015, a new complaint was filed with FERC, alleging that the power purchase agreement with National Grid violates the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act of 1978 and that the RIPUC violated the Federal Power Act and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. However, Deepwater Wind maintained that there was no support for any of these claims and that FERC should promptly deny the new complaint in its entirety.[22]

While the wind turbines have been built in state waters southeast of Block Island, the transmission cable crosses federal waters in the Atlantic. A portion of the power is supplied directly to Block Island, 13 miles (21 km) off-shore from the Rhode Island mainland and has some of the highest power rates in the country due to its local generation by small diesel-powered generators.[24][25][26]

Deepwater Wind announced in March 2015 that it had received funding in the amount of $290 million from mandated lead arrangers Société Générale of Paris, France and KeyBank National Association of Cleveland, Ohio.[27] The farm design was verified in 2017.[28]

Construction

[edit]

In late 2014, Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc.[29] began steelwork construction at its Houma, Louisiana shipyard. The building phase focused on the turbines' foundations (for platforms) to be pile-anchored to the ocean floor. On June 26, 2015, the first of the five foundations for the project began its move from Louisiana via barge.[30] The turbines were expected to be delivered later in 2015 and erected in place in 2016.[31][needs update] Foundation assembly started in ProvPort in March 2016, with commissioning estimated to be done late 2016.[32] GZA GeoEnvironmental provided the geotechnical design and consulting for the staging facility at the Port of Providence.[33]

The foundations were designed by Louisiana-based Keystone Engineering Inc. to withstand a 1,000-year storm.[34] While the four-pile jacket foundation is common for offshore oil and gas platforms, Block Island's jackets are engineered to handle additional loading and vibration from the spinning turbines.[35] Keystone's engineering team ran thousands of test simulations, repeating each calculation multiple times to ensure the design would hold up under various weather conditions and load scenarios. Altogether, nearly 10 million tests were completed.[35]

Louisiana offshore oil and gas service providers played an important role in constructing the Block Island Wind Farm.[36] US-flagged operator Falcon Global used its lift barge “The Robert” to assist foreign operators and other coastwise-qualified vessels.[37] The boat travelled about 2,000 miles from Louisiana to Block Island over the course of 14 days and 14 nights.

On March 9, 2015, French company Alstom received final notification to begin fabrication of five Alstom Haliade 150 6 MW offshore wind turbines. GE Wind Energy acquired Alstom Wind and Haliade production in November 2015.[38] As of July 2016, the site was grid-connected,[39][40] and towers and LM Wind Power blades[41] were in the port of Providence. The Norwegian installation jack-up vessel[42] was on its way to France to pick up the 400 tonne generators,[43] as it was not able to pick them up from an easier US port due to the Jones Act.[44] A test version of the direct-drive[45] turbine is installed at Østerild Wind Turbine Test Field.[46][needs update]

Close-up of GE–Alstom 150-6MW at Østerild, 2017

The first turbine was erected in August 2016.[47][48][49] On August 18, 2016, Deepwater Wind CEO Jeffrey Grybowski announced Block Island Wind Farm was fully constructed.[50][51] The wind farm commenced commercial operation in December 2016.[52]

Operation

[edit]

During a major winter storm in March 2017, the turbines functioned as designed, automatically cutting out when the wind speed reached 55 mph (25 m/s).[3] After the wind speed had topped out at about 69 mph (31 m/s), they resumed production again once the speed went below the cut-off threshold.[53]

The project also provided jobs for the state of Rhode Island, employing welders, workers during assembly of the wind turbines, and divers.[54]

Since its construction, the project site has undergone regularly scheduled maintenance. According to the company, much of these repairs happen in the summer.[55] U.S.-flagged liftboats are used on the project site to both provide accommodations for workers and serve as a platform for performing routine maintenance.[56]

The Block Island Wind Farm has experienced multiple issues, causing it to fail to perform on some occasions. Problems include turbine stress fatigue on four of the five turbines and erosion exposing the underwater cables that took the power to the mainland. The combination of the issues resulted in extensive shutdowns in the summer of 2021 for repairs and safety inspections. Four of the five wind turbines at the farm were offline for at least two months.[57][58][clarification needed]

Island residents generally welcomed the activation of the wind farm and the grid connection. Power on Block Island had previously been provided by diesel generators, which created soot that dirtied neighbors' curtains, and noise that blotted out birdsong. Electricity costs dropped by about a third with the switch from shipped-in diesel to grid power. The fuel switch prompted local utility to sell to its own customers and become a cooperative. Excess power from the wind farm is fed into the on-shore grid, with generators only used in emergencies. When wind is not blowing, and to access cheaper sources than the wind farm, Block Island buys power from the grid along with carbon offsets. Starting in November 2025, it will source only 100% renewable electricity.[59]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Block Island Wind Farm

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Block Island Wind Farm is the first commercial offshore wind farm in the United States, consisting of five GE Haliade 150-6 MW turbines with a combined of 30 MW, located approximately 3 miles southeast of , , in state waters of the Atlantic Ocean. Developed by Deepwater Wind—subsequently acquired by Ørsted—and commissioned in December 2016 following construction that began in 2015, the project generates an estimated annual output of 125 GWh, sufficient to power about 17,000 homes while supplying over 100% of Block Island's electricity needs using roughly 10% of its production, thereby displacing the island's prior dependence on five diesel generators that emitted soot and noise. The facility has achieved capacity factors exceeding initial projections in recent years, including around 60% during peak periods in 2025, validating the engineering viability of fixed-bottom offshore turbines in U.S. East conditions and serving as a foundational demonstration for subsequent larger-scale developments, though early operations highlighted logistical challenges in maintenance and for nascent domestic offshore wind infrastructure. Studies monitoring environmental impacts, including on fisheries and coastal resources, have found no significant adverse effects and in some cases observed increased abundance of certain fish around turbine structures, countering pre-construction concerns while underscoring the need for ongoing empirical assessment amid broader debates on scaling offshore wind amid variable output and grid integration demands.

Background and Development

Project Initiation and Rationale

Deepwater Wind, a Providence-based developer, initiated the Block Island Wind Farm project in 2008 following selection by state officials as the preferred offshore wind developer under the state's Ocean Special Area Management Plan. In September 2008, the state entered into an agreement with Deepwater Wind to pursue the first commercial offshore wind facility in U.S. waters, located approximately three miles southeast of in state waters. This joint development agreement, formalized on January 2, 2009, committed to assist in negotiations for power off-take and permitting, marking an early state-led effort to pioneer domestic offshore wind amid limited prior U.S. experience. A key milestone occurred in December 2009 when Deepwater Wind signed a 20-year (PPA) with National Grid, 's primary utility, at an initial rate of 24.4 cents per , enabling the project's economic viability through long-term revenue certainty. This followed 's 2009 legislation establishing long-term contracting standards for , which facilitated such agreements to overcome financing barriers for nascent technologies. The PPA approval by the in August 2010, after legal challenges, solidified the project's path forward. The primary rationale centered on replacing Block Island's reliance on five diesel generators, which supplied the island's electricity at high costs and with significant emissions, using offshore wind to achieve 100% renewable power generation for the community of about 1,000 residents and seasonal visitors. Proponents viewed the 30-megawatt project as a demonstration of offshore wind's technical and commercial feasibility in the U.S., drawing on European precedents to build domestic supply chains and expertise despite first-of-a-kind risks and the absence of U.S.-manufactured monopile foundations at the time. State support emphasized , job creation in renewables, and reduced dependence, with excess power intended for export to the mainland grid via a new undersea transmission cable.

Site Selection and Planning

The site for the Block Island Wind Farm was selected in the coastal waters of , approximately 3.8 miles (6.1 km) southeast of , within state waters rather than federal offshore areas. This location was chosen primarily due to the island's historical dependence on costly diesel generators for electricity, which incurred expenses up to four times the mainland average, and the region's consistent offshore wind speeds averaging 10-11 meters per second at hub height. The proximity to facilitated an undersea cable connection to the island's grid, enabling direct replacement of diesel power while minimizing transmission losses, and positioned the project as a small-scale demonstration to test technologies and permitting processes for larger U.S. offshore wind developments. Planning for the site began in the early 2010s, driven by Rhode Island's 2010 Long-Term Renewable Energy Plan, which prioritized offshore wind to meet renewable portfolio standards and reduce reliance. Developer Deepwater Wind, now part of Ørsted, conducted wind resource assessments and feasibility studies, evaluating factors such as conditions, water depths of 24-32 , and navigational safety. The site's selection emphasized balancing energy potential with minimal disruption to commercial fisheries and marine habitats, informed by initial geophysical surveys and modeling of turbine wake effects. Environmental planning included comprehensive baseline studies on benthic habitats, fish assemblages, and lobster populations, with sediment sampling confirming low contaminant levels suitable for construction. These assessments, required under state and federal reviews, incorporated public input from residents, leading to a community benefits agreement that provided and job training to mitigate local concerns over visual impacts and . The process highlighted the advantages of state-water siting for expedited approvals compared to federal leases, though it still required coordination with agencies like the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for evaluations.

Permits and Regulatory Hurdles

The permitting process for the Block Island Wind Farm, developed by Deepwater Wind (now Ørsted), primarily fell under state jurisdiction due to its location approximately 3.8 miles southeast of in state waters, but required concurrent federal approvals for environmental compliance and construction impacts. The Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) led the state-level review, incorporating public input and environmental assessments before issuing final submerged lands leases, joint licenses, and assents on November 17, 2014, following earlier preliminary approvals in May 2014. Federal hurdles included a U.S. Army of Engineers (USACE) permit under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, granted on September 9, 2014, after completion of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the wind farm and associated Block Island Transmission System (BITS) submarine cable. Additional federal requirements encompassed consultations under the Endangered Species Act for potential impacts on marine species, incidental take authorizations from the (NMFS) for construction noise affecting marine mammals, and compliance with the (NEPA) through the USACE EA, which addressed cumulative effects on fisheries, benthic habitats, and navigation. Regulatory challenges stemmed from the project's status as the first commercial-scale offshore wind facility , necessitating pioneering navigation of fragmented state-federal overlaps and stakeholder consultations amid concerns over visual , interference with grounds, and potential disruptions such as collisions and displacement during piling operations. Opposition from local fishermen and residents highlighted risks to tourism-dependent viewsheds and fisheries, though these did not result in successful litigation delays, unlike contemporaneous federal-water projects such as . The state-led framework expedited approvals relative to full federal processes under the (BOEM), enabling to commence in 2015 after all major permits were secured by late 2014.

Technical Design and Specifications

Turbine and Array Configuration

The Block Island Wind Farm comprises five GE Haliade 150-6 MW offshore wind turbines, each rated at 6 MW for a total installed capacity of 30 MW. The Haliade model features a direct-drive generator, three composite blades, and a rotor diameter of 150 meters, with a hub height of 100 meters above . These turbines are mounted on fixed-bottom jacket foundations in water depths ranging from 24 to 31 meters. The turbines are arranged in a single radial array spanning approximately 2 miles in length, oriented roughly parallel to the Block Island coastline and located about 3 miles southeast of the island. Individual are spaced roughly 0.5 miles apart to optimize wake effects and energy capture while minimizing interference. The array is interconnected via inter-array cables rated at 34.5 kV, which transmit power from each turbine to a central cable linking to the onshore substation. This configuration supports efficient power collection and transmission to the mainland grid via undersea cables.

Supporting Infrastructure

The Block Island Wind Farm employs a radial electrical collection utilizing inter-array cables rated at 34.5 kV to connect the five turbines, enabling power aggregation without an offshore substation due to the project's small scale of 30 MW total capacity. These cables, buried in the seafloor, facilitate intra-farm transmission over distances of approximately 2-3 kilometers between turbines, minimizing electrical losses through medium-voltage AC design. The export infrastructure consists of a single 34.5 kV AC submarine cable, buried along the seafloor, extending roughly 20 miles from the wind farm array to the Block Island shoreline, followed by terrestrial underground cabling to the island's switchyard. Overall, the project incorporated about 28 miles of submarine and underground cables weighing 3,400 metric tons, installed starting in May 2015 using specialized lay vessels with onboard holding tanks for coiled deployment. This export route integrates with the Block Island Transmission System (BITS), a parallel submarine link that transmits the generated power approximately 25 miles to mainland Rhode Island interconnection points, while also embedding fiber optic lines for substation communications and providing high-speed internet access to Block Island residents for the first time. Onshore supporting elements include the BITS Island Switchyard at the Block Island Substation, which steps up voltage for efficient transmission and handles power routing from the wind farm cables landing near the island's coast. Construction involved trenching and aerial crossings over wetlands, with for environmental impacts such as estuarine crossings, completed prior to full commissioning in late 2016. Mainland interconnection occurs at substations linked to the bulk electric grid, engineered to accommodate both the wind farm output and broader island energy needs, including telecommunications redundancy.

Capacity and Expected Output

The Block Island Wind Farm features five GE Haliade 150-6 MW offshore wind turbines, providing a total of 30 MW. Each turbine has a rotor diameter of 150 meters and a hub height of 100 meters, designed for the site's water depths of approximately 25 meters. The project was projected to generate around 125,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) of annually, equivalent to the consumption of approximately 17,000 average American households. This output reflects an anticipated of about 48%, benefiting from consistent offshore averaging 9-10 meters per second at hub height. Roughly 90% of the island's is met by the wind farm, with the remainder and excess power transmitted via undersea cable to the mainland grid.

Construction Phase

Timeline and Key Milestones

The construction phase of the Block Island Wind Farm began in summer 2015, marking the initial offshore installation activities for the five-turbine array. On July 26, 2015, the first 400-ton steel jacket foundation was set on the by the installation contractor, representing the project's "steel in the water" milestone and the start of substructure work. The remaining four jackets were installed over the following weeks, with piling operations completing the foundations by late 2015; these fixed-bottom structures were driven into the to support the turbines in waters approximately 25 meters deep. Turbine installation commenced in August 2016 using the jack-up vessel Brave Tern, with the first Haliade 150-6 MW unit fully assembled on its foundation by August 5, 2016. The process averaged about three days per , including , rotor, and assembly, allowing completion of all five units within roughly one month. Interconnection cable laying from the onshore substation in New Shoreham to the offshore export cable occurred concurrently with turbine work, linking the to the mainland grid for the first time. The facility entered commercial operation in December 2016, delivering its initial power output and replacing Block Island's prior diesel-dependent generation. This milestone concluded construction approximately 18 months after foundations began, with total costs reported at around $290 million.

Engineering Challenges and Solutions

The primary engineering challenge during the construction of the Block Island Wind Farm's foundations stemmed from the seabed conditions, characterized by hard clay and dense sands interspersed with glacial erratics, which complicated precise site assessment and installation stability. To address this, developers selected four-pile twisted jacket foundations, a design adapted from Gulf of Mexico oil and gas platforms, which provided enhanced stability in variable soils while requiring 15% less steel and reducing costs by approximately 20% compared to monopile alternatives. Pile-drivability analyses, informed by geotechnical data from eight borings conducted in May 2014, guided the selection of a high-capacity hydraulic hammer and an optimized driving sequence with incremental stroke increases to achieve a target penetration depth of about 57 meters per pile, preventing refusal or structural damage across all 20 piles installed. Installation logistics were further challenged by the site's exposure to complex weather patterns, including frequent storms that limited operational windows and posed risks to vessels and equipment. A contingency plan with predefined halt criteria mitigated delays, enabling the completion of the five 400-ton steel jacket foundations between July and November 2015 using transport barges and a Weeks Marine-Manson Construction joint venture, despite incidents like a mooring line failure in rough waters on October 20, 2015. Scour risks from currents around the piles were monitored continuously with acoustic beam systems over 14 months, revealing lower-than-predicted erosion and confirming long-term integrity without remedial measures. Turbine erection presented additional hurdles due to the offshore environment's demands on heavy-lift operations for the five GE Haliade 150-6 MW units, including and assembly in variable winds and waves, though the project's small scale avoided the need for specialized purpose-built vessels. Standard jack-up barge methods, adapted from European practices, facilitated sequential installation following foundation completion, with commissioning achieved by December 2016; during piling adhered to environmental constraints to minimize disturbance, aligning with U.S. regulatory requirements for the pioneering site. These solutions collectively demonstrated the feasibility of adapting mature oil and gas technologies to U.S. East Coast conditions, paving the way for scaled deployments despite inherent terrain and meteorological variability.

Operation and Performance

Commissioning and Early Operations (2016–2018)

The Block Island Wind Farm entered commercial operation on December 12, 2016, becoming the first utility-scale offshore wind facility connected to the U.S. grid. The project delivered initial power from four of its five GE Haliade 150-6 MW turbines to Block Island's isolated electrical system via a 34-kV subsea export cable spanning approximately 4 miles to the island. This milestone followed the installation of all turbines during the summer of 2016 and interconnection testing, with the facility designed to supply up to 90% of the island's annual electricity demand while exporting surplus generation to the mainland through a parallel (HVDC) cable to National Grid's system in . The fifth turbine encountered a commissioning delay after failing during routine testing in early November 2016, when a 6-inch drill bit inadvertently left inside the generator during factory assembly in caused damage to the magnets. Repairs, covered under GE's , involved magnet replacement and were completed without significant impact to overall project timelines, restoring full five- operation by February 7, 2017. This incident highlighted early supply chain quality control challenges in first-of-a-kind offshore deployment but did not prevent regulatory approval for commercial operations from the Coastal Resources Management Council on November 29, 2016. By May 1, 2017, reliable output from the wind farm enabled the permanent shutdown of Block Island's aging diesel-fired generators, which had powered the island for over a century at high fuel costs and emissions. The transition integrated wind generation with the new mainland interconnection, reducing reliance on fossil fuels and stabilizing local rates under the long-term with National Grid. Through 2017 and 2018, the facility maintained steady performance, with no major unplanned outages reported beyond routine maintenance, supporting its role as a demonstration project for U.S. offshore wind scalability.

Long-Term Reliability and Output Data

Since commencing commercial operations in December 2016, the Block Island Wind Farm has produced varying annual outputs, with documented figures for select years indicating performance below initial projections. In 2021, the facility generated 83,000 MWh, yielding a of 32%. Production increased to 110,000 MWh in 2022. Across its operational history through early 2023, average annual generation has approximated 118,000 MWh, equivalent to a net of 41.3%. This compares to pre-construction estimates of 125,000 MWh annually, implying a projected of roughly 48% based on the 30 MW . Reliability has been impacted by periodic outages beyond routine , highlighting challenges inherent to offshore operations such as exposure to marine conditions and logistical constraints for repairs. In June 2021, four of the five GE Haliade turbines were halted following the discovery of stress in blades of the same model at a German offshore site, prompting safety inspections and contributing to an average capacity of just 6.6% during July and August 2021, when only one turbine operated. A transmission cable failure in November 2022 interrupted all power flows from the farm until repairs were completed, relying on island diesel backups during the event. Summer schedules, intended as routine, have occasionally extended, as in 2021 when inspections overlapped with planned work, sidelining turbines for up to two months. Despite these interruptions, recent performance has shown variability with higher peaks, such as an average of about 60% in March and April 2025, aligning with output from more efficient plants during those months. Overall availability remains subject to weather-dependent generation and maintenance downtime, with empirical data underscoring that actual long-term output has not consistently met modeled expectations due to unforeseen technical issues and environmental factors.

Maintenance and Downtime Issues

In June 2021, Ørsted shut down four of the five turbines at the Block Island Wind Farm for routine summer maintenance, coupled with safety inspections and repairs addressing "stress lines" identified in Haliade 150-6 MW turbines, following similar problems reported in European installations. This extended outage lasted approximately two months, reducing the farm's average capacity to 6.6% in July and August 2021, as only one turbine remained operational. The turbines were deemed structurally sound after a full , with no broader structural failures confirmed. Preventive maintenance occurs twice per year across the array, with each session entailing 2 to 3 days of per to optimize scheduling around and operational needs. Such planned downtimes aim to sustain long-term reliability, though they contribute to intermittent visibility of fewer than five rotating blades, as noted in local observations during favorable conditions. Operational data indicate variable availability, with the farm achieving a capacity factor of approximately 60% during March and April 2025, reflecting effective post-maintenance performance comparable to modern plants. However, earlier years showed lower averages, estimated around 38% and declining, influenced by both and meteorological factors. No peer-reviewed studies or official reports document systemic failures beyond routine interventions, though transmission cable outages—distinct from downtime—have separately interrupted power delivery to .

Economic Aspects

Development and Construction Costs

The Block Island Wind Farm, the first commercial offshore wind project in the United States with a 30 MW capacity, incurred total development and construction costs of approximately $300 million. This figure reflects the first-of-a-kind (FOAK) nature of the project, which involved novel engineering for U.S. waters, including turbine manufacturing, subsea cabling, and installation in challenging coastal conditions approximately 3.5 miles southeast of , . In a 2010 filing with the , developer Deepwater Wind estimated construction costs alone at $200.5 million, explicitly excluding development expenditures such as permitting and , as well as financing costs..pdf) By February 2015, the project achieved financial close with $290 million in combined debt and equity financing to cover capital expenditures for engineering, procurement, construction, and commissioning of the five 6 MW Haliade turbines, monopile , and undersea transmission . Some analyses cite a slightly higher total of $360 million, attributing variances to overruns in logistics and site-specific adaptations like twisted jacket for stability. These costs translated to roughly $10 million per MW of , significantly above onshore wind benchmarks and even subsequent U.S. offshore projects, due to limited domestic supply chains, regulatory hurdles spanning from 2009 federal leasing to 2014 final approvals, and the absence of scaled at the time. Development-phase expenses, though not itemized publicly, encompassed multi-year federal and state permitting under the process, environmental impact assessments, and stakeholder negotiations, contributing to the elevated overall required for ..pdf)

Funding Sources and Subsidies

The Block Island Wind Farm was financed primarily through and debt raised by developer Deepwater Wind, LLC, with significant backing from investors including the New York-based D.E. Shaw & Co. The project's total reached approximately $360 million for the 30 MW installation, covering turbines, subsea cabling, and grid interconnection without direct public grants from federal or state governments. A primary federal subsidy was the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 48 of the , which Deepwater elected at 30% of eligible costs in lieu of the Production Tax Credit (PTC), providing an upfront credit estimated at over $100 million based on the project's scale. This election facilitated better financing terms for the capital-intensive offshore development, as the ITC offered immediate tax relief rather than phased PTC payments over 10 years at approximately 2.3 cents per kWh produced. The credit's availability, extended through legislation like the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and subsequent renewals, was critical to the project's economic feasibility, with analyses indicating that federal tax incentives substantially boosted profitability amid high first-of-a-kind costs. At the state level, regulators approved a 20-year (PPA) with utility National Grid at an initial rate of 24.4 cents per kWh, escalating 3.5% annually to an average of 34.5 cents per kWh—well above contemporaneous market wholesale prices of around 5-7 cents per kWh—imposing an effective subsidy via elevated ratepayer costs totaling roughly $390 million over the contract term. The initially deemed the PPA not "commercially reasonable" due to these premiums and limited job creation (35-50 temporary, 6 permanent positions), but state legislation mandating approval overrode objections, allowing a 2.75% markup on expenses passed directly to customers. No additional state tax credits or direct appropriations were applied, though expedited permitting under 's Ocean Special Area Management Plan supported development timelines.

Power Pricing and Ratepayer Impact

The Block Island Wind Farm operates under a 20-year (PPA) signed in 2009 between developer Deepwater Wind (now Ørsted) and National Grid, establishing an initial price of 244permegawatt−hour(244 per megawatt-hour (0.244 per ) for the farm's output, with a 2.5% annual . By the agreement's 20th year, the price escalates to approximately $479 per megawatt-hour. This fixed-price structure, mandated by law with an "open book" review capping costs, exceeded contemporaneous mainland wholesale electricity prices (typically 5–10 cents per ) but was calibrated below the island's pre-project diesel generation costs, which averaged around 47 cents per in 2011 and peaked at 50 cents or more during summer demand. For Block Island's approximately 1,000 year-round residents and seasonal population, the wind farm's commissioning in displaced reliance on diesel generators, which had driven some of the nation's highest retail rates. Pre-project rates reached up to 60 cents per , compared to mainland averages of about 14.8 cents. Post-operation, effective generation costs fell below prior diesel levels, with overall electricity expenses reported as less than one-third of what they would have been under continued diesel operation, factoring in avoided fuel volatility and maintenance. Developer projections of a 40% rate reduction were realized in generation savings, though total retail rates remain elevated relative to the mainland—around 36 cents per in recent years—due to fixed distribution, transmission, and small-scale system overheads not offset by the project. Broader ratepayers experienced negligible direct impact, as the 30-megawatt project's output primarily serves the island's isolated grid via dedicated undersea cabling, with National Grid absorbing the PPA costs without significant passthrough to mainland customers. The above-market pricing reflects first-of-a-kind offshore development premiums, unsubsidized by federal production tax credits at inception, though state policy support via the mandated PPA effectively socialized development risks to secure the fixed supply. Critics, including analysts, argue such structures embed higher long-term costs compared to unsubsidized or nuclear alternatives, potentially influencing future regional pricing benchmarks.

Environmental and Ecological Effects

Impacts on Marine Ecosystems

During construction of the Block Island Wind Farm (BIWF) in 2016, pile driving generated underwater noise levels that temporarily displaced marine mammals, prompting behavioral changes such as avoidance within several kilometers of the site, though protected species observers and soft-start protocols mitigated direct harm without reported injuries or deaths. Sediment disturbances from anchoring created furrows in soft seabeds, with 32% recovery by May 2017 and full biological recolonization on relocated boulders reaching 62% cover by August 2016, indicating primarily short-term physical alterations confined to the installation footprint. Post-construction monitoring revealed localized enhancements to benthic habitats around turbine foundations, where epifaunal communities exhibited spatial fluctuations but no widespread degradation, with alterations in seabed sediments and faunal composition limited to within 10 meters of structures. assemblages showed attraction to turbines, evidenced by over 1,200% increased abundance of (Centropristis striata) within 200 meters due to structure-seeking behavior and effects, while like longfin squid (Doryteuthis pealeii) displayed no statistically significant changes attributable to the farm. Invertebrate populations, including (Homarus americanus), experienced elevated trap catches near the site during construction phases (+0.5 to +1.1 lobsters per trap) but regional declines during operation (-0.5 to -0.6 per trap), potentially influenced by broader environmental factors rather than farm-specific effects; crabs such as (Cancer borealis) showed no detectable impacts. Long-term acoustic and visual surveys confirmed no sustained disruptions to marine mammals, with no empirical link between BIWF operations and mortalities, countering unsubstantiated claims of causation. Overall, empirical data indicate that BIWF effects on marine ecosystems are predominantly localized and transient, with operational structures fostering aggregation for certain without evidence of ecosystem-scale .

Effects on Avian and Bat Populations

Post-construction acoustic monitoring at the Wind Farm, conducted from August 2017 to February 2020 using detectors mounted on turbine nacelles, recorded 24 potential bird calls across over 2.2 million audio files analyzed, indicating minimal nocturnal avian activity near the rotors. No direct avian fatalities have been documented at the facility, with researchers attributing this to the site's pre-construction identification as a low-use area for birds and observed avoidance behaviors where birds alter flight paths to higher altitudes or nearer to shore. Such avoidance reduces collision probabilities but may contribute to displacement, limiting access to or migration routes, consistent with patterns observed at European offshore sites though unquantified specifically for . Bat activity during the same monitoring period was low and seasonal, with 2,294 passes detected over 1,707 detector-nights, yielding a rate of 1.3 passes per detector-night, primarily from to and absent from December to April. Dominant included eastern red s (41.4% of identifications), silver-haired s (35.1%), and hoary s (12.5%), with 63% of passes occurring at speeds below 7 m/s when turbine blades rotate slowly or not at all, thereby lowering collision . Overall presence offshore remains sparse compared to terrestrial sites, leading assessments to conclude negligible population-level impacts from the five turbines. Challenges in offshore carcass detection, including tidal scavenging and water currents dispersing remains, limit precise mortality estimates, though acoustic and data suggest risks are substantially lower than at onshore wind facilities. Operator-funded studies like these, while providing empirical baselines, warrant scrutiny for potential underreporting incentives, yet align with independent pre-construction surveys confirming limited avian and utilization of the lease area. Ongoing technological advancements, such as thermal imaging and nanotag tracking, aim to refine these assessments for future operations.

Broader Habitat and Visual Considerations

The monopile foundations of the Block Island Wind Farm have altered local seabed habitats by introducing artificial hard substrates in areas previously dominated by soft, sandy bottoms. Within four years of installation in late 2016, mussel (Mytilus edulis) aggregations up to 50 cm deep formed on turbine footprints, creating new biotopes co-dominated by barnacles (Balanus spp.) and mussels, previously unrecorded in Block Island Sound. This enhanced habitat complexity supported colonization by epifauna including hydroids, sponges, and anemones, as well as fish such as black sea bass, with over 100 individuals observed per turbine by the third year. Construction activities disturbed soft sediments, leaving furrows that recovered to 32% by May 2017, while biological cover on hard bottoms like boulders increased from 10% to 62% by August 2016. These foundations function as artificial reefs, potentially expanding populations 30–90 meters outward and serving as nursery grounds for , with implications for regional carbon cycling and filtration via larval dispersal over tens of kilometers. Such shifts demonstrate causal effects of structure addition on benthic community assembly, though long-term stability remains under monitoring. Visually, the turbines, situated 5.3 km southeast of , are clearly visible from the island's southern shoreline, with a 30-mile assessment radius identifying potential viewsheds covering up to 9.1% of studied coastal areas after accounting for and lidar topography. Visibility diminishes beyond 20 miles due to and atmospheric conditions, though elevated viewpoints increase detectability; turbine motion is subtle at distance, while FAA obstruction lights remain prominent at night from shore. Concerns over aesthetic degradation of pristine ocean vistas prompted opposition, yet post-construction data reveal no negative economic repercussions. analyses using listings from 2014–2017 showed peak-season increases of 7 additional nights in reservations per property, 19 rises in occupancy, and $3,490 higher monthly revenues compared to control sites, indicating the wind farm neither deterred visitors nor depressed values but may have enhanced appeal as a modern landmark.

Controversies and Criticisms

Local and Stakeholder Opposition

Local residents and stakeholders expressed concerns over the Block Island Wind Farm's potential to alter scenic views and impact , with turbines visible from the island approximately 3.8 miles offshore, prompting fears of diminished aesthetic appeal and property values. In 2010, Attorney General Patrick Lynch challenged the project's legally, arguing it favored Deepwater Wind through state subsidies and imposed undue costs on ratepayers, reflecting broader skepticism about the economic viability of offshore wind. A mainland , Deepwater Resistance, emerged to oppose the development, citing risks to for sailors and boaters due to turbine proximity and potential interference with marine traffic. processes drew criticism for insufficient trust-building, leading some stakeholders to form negative views of the project's transparency and decision-making, as documented in analyses of resident perceptions. Fishermen voiced early worries about disruptions to grounds, though post-operational studies indicated no long-term negative effects on populations and potential enhancements from turbine foundations acting as artificial reefs. The New Shoreham Town Council conveyed community apprehensions to developers, including demands for higher annual benefit payments beyond the initial $700,000 fund for local mitigation efforts, underscoring tensions over equitable compensation for visual and environmental intrusions. Preservationists later highlighted risks to historic coastal vistas, such as those near Newport, arguing that the farm's foundations and cabling could indirectly affect culturally significant landscapes, though primary opposition centered on Block Island's unique island context. Despite these objections, negotiations yielded a community benefits agreement in 2010, which included funding for electrification projects to replace diesel generators, helping to temper resistance among year-round residents reliant on imported fuel.

Reliability and Scalability Debates

The Block Island Wind Farm, with a nameplate capacity of 30 MW from five 6 MW turbines, has demonstrated a real-world capacity factor of approximately 35-42%, lower than the pre-construction projection of 47.5%. This metric reflects the farm's average output relative to maximum potential, highlighting wind intermittency where generation varies with unpredictable speeds and directions, necessitating grid-scale backups like natural gas peaker plants for reliability. Offshore operations exacerbate downtime risks, as evidenced by a full transmission cable outage on November 18, 2022, which halted all power export from the turbines until diesel generators were deployed onsite by Block Island Power Company. Similar cable faults in 2021 required reburial efforts, underscoring vulnerabilities in subsea infrastructure exposed to corrosion, anchors, and currents. Maintenance challenges further compound reliability concerns, with offshore access limited by harsh weather—delaying repairs up to 20-30% longer than onshore equivalents—and higher costs for specialized vessels and technicians. Critics, including analysts, argue these factors yield effective capacity credits of 14.5-28.3% in integrated grid models, far below dispatchability, as variable output correlates poorly with . Proponents counter that monitoring systems installed at , tracking structural fatigue and vibrations, enable to mitigate failures, though empirical data from the site's first years show unplanned outages exceeding initial estimates. Scalability debates center on extrapolating Block Island's pilot-scale lessons to gigawatt deployments across the U.S. East Coast, where glacial boulders, variable seabeds, and deeper waters complicate fixed-bottom foundations, inflating installation times and costs beyond the $300 million for this 30 MW project. Supply chain bottlenecks, including shortages of U.S.-built installation vessels compliant with the Jones Act, have delayed larger projects, contrasting Europe's mature infrastructure. Skeptics highlight that intermittency scales nonlinearly, requiring vast overbuild (2-3x nameplate for equivalent firm power) plus unproven storage, while cumulative cable and foundation failures could strain limited repair capacity. Advocates, citing NREL projections of 11.5% cost reductions per production doubling, assert manufacturing ramps and larger turbines (e.g., 12-15 MW) will address these, yet Block Island's underperformance relative to projections questions such optimism absent empirical validation at terawatt hours. Geological surveys reveal U.S. sites often demand custom engineering, unlike smoother European basins, potentially capping viable acreage below Biden-era 30 GW targets by 2030.

Comparisons to Alternative Energy Sources

The Block Island Wind Farm (BIWF), with its 30 MW , demonstrates characteristics typical of early offshore wind projects, including a averaging 35-41% based on operational data from 2016 to 2023, which falls short of the 56% for combined-cycle plants and exceeds 90% for nuclear reactors. This requires grid-scale backup, such as peaker gas plants, to maintain reliability, unlike the dispatchable output of or nuclear, which provide consistent baseload power without equivalent system integration costs. Economically, BIWF's 20-year , signed in 2014 at $244 per MWh (escalating to $479 per MWh by year 20), exceeds unsubsidized levelized costs of (LCOE) for alternatives; for instance, combined-cycle LCOE ranges from $41-74 per MWh, onshore from $27-73 per MWh, utility-scale solar PV from $24-96 per MWh, and advanced nuclear from $76-89 per MWh, as projected for plants entering service around 2024-2027. Offshore 's higher upfront capital expenses—driven by marine foundations, cabling, and turbine logistics—contribute to this premium, even as technology matures, whereas benefits from lower construction timelines (often under 3 years) and modular scalability compared to BIWF's multi-year development. On lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, offshore wind like BIWF emits approximately 11 g CO₂-equivalent per kWh, on par with nuclear (12 g CO₂-eq/kWh) and far below combined-cycle (490 g CO₂-eq/kWh without carbon capture) or even solar PV (48 g CO₂-eq/kWh), primarily from and installation rather than operations. However, wind's lower (EROEI) of around 3.5:1 contrasts with higher values for (up to 30:1) or nuclear (75:1), potentially limiting net gains when accounting for backup fuels and materials like rare-earth magnets in turbines.
MetricBIWF/Offshore Wind CCNuclearUtility-Scale Solar
Capacity Factor (%)35-4156>9020-25
Unsubsidized LCOE ($/MWh, ~2024 entry)100-150 (early projects higher)41-7476-8924-96
Lifecycle GHG (g CO₂-eq/kWh)~11~490~12~48
These comparisons highlight offshore wind's role in displacing fuels but underscore challenges in cost-competitiveness and reliability relative to established dispatchable sources, particularly for small-scale demonstrations like BIWF.

Legacy and Broader Implications

Influence on Offshore Wind Policy

The Block Island Wind Farm, commissioned on December 12, 2016, as the first commercial offshore wind project in the with a capacity of 30 megawatts from five turbines, demonstrated the technical feasibility of installing and operating such facilities in American waters, thereby serving as a foundational proof-of-concept for national offshore wind ambitions. This demonstration role was explicitly recognized by federal officials, including then-Interior Secretary , who noted that lessons from the project's design, fabrication, and installation would inform future developments, contributing to a shift in policy emphasis toward scaling up offshore wind under frameworks like the leasing program managed by the (BOEM). Although located in state waters and thus exempt from direct BOEM oversight, the project's success in replacing diesel generation and powering approximately 17,000 homes provided empirical evidence that supported state-level expansions and federal momentum for commercial leasing, with BOEM issuing subsequent leases for larger projects totaling over 15 gigawatts by the early . Operational data from the farm, including of marine habitats and fisheries interactions, offered real-world insights that shaped BOEM's regulatory guidelines for federal projects, such as enhanced requirements for benthic surveys and stakeholder consultations to mitigate ecological disruptions. For instance, post-commissioning studies on wake effects and disturbance informed strategies in and operations plans (COPs) for utility-scale farms like , approved by BOEM in , emphasizing the need for site-specific impact assessments to balance development with coastal resource protection. The project's completion also bolstered industry confidence, enabling developers like Ørsted (successor to Deepwater Wind) to secure federal leases and advance a domestic , which indirectly influenced policy incentives in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law of by highlighting gaps in manufacturing and port infrastructure that required federal investment. Critically, the high capital costs—exceeding $300 million for the 30-megawatt installation—and elevated rates of approximately 24 cents per (in 2010 terms) exposed economic challenges, prompting policymakers to prioritize subsidies and tax credits in subsequent legislation, such as the of 2022, to reduce levelized costs for larger-scale deployments. These realities underscored causal factors like immaturity and permitting delays, leading to streamlined federal processes under BOEM while revealing scalability hurdles that tempered overly optimistic projections in early documents. Overall, while not altering core statutes, the farm's legacy reinforced a trajectory favoring empirical validation over theoretical modeling, with its integrated into national strategies aiming for 30 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030.

Lessons Learned for Future Developments

The Block Island Wind Farm demonstrated the value of early and inclusive to mitigate conflicts, particularly with commercial and recreational fisheries. Upfront planning through mechanisms like Rhode Island's Ocean Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) facilitated federal consistency reviews and incorporated a , allowing fishermen to influence project design, such as cable routing and turbine layouts. However, exclusion of out-of-state fishermen highlighted the need for regional approaches encompassing all affected users across state boundaries. Over 20 stakeholder meetings and 15 direct sessions with fishermen enabled cooperative research that refined sampling designs and data interpretation, underscoring that integrating local knowledge early reduces opposition and improves outcomes. Environmental monitoring protocols proved effective in assessing impacts, employing before-after-control-impact () designs with stratified random sampling and power analyses to detect changes. Baseline data collection prior to leasing and construction is essential, as geophysical surveys can alter fisheries habitats, yet such data gaps persisted for some species. Observed recoveries included biological cover on disturbed hard-bottom boulders rising from 10% to 62% within a year post-construction and 32% of soft-sediment drag marks by May 2017; demersal fish like black sea bass showed over 1,200% abundance increases near turbines during operations, with no significant lobster predation effects. Recreational fishing activity rose 40% in operational zones, shifting toward turbine structures, while adaptive monitoring—such as extending lobster surveys by one month—revealed migration patterns and emphasized the need for multiple metrics (e.g., catch rates, diet composition) and long-term habitat connectivity assessments with natural reefs. In , , and , challenges arose from global supply chains and interface risks, necessitating focused quality controls on high-risk components during rapid production phases from 2014 to 2016. Accurate initial minimized rework, while enhanced coordination mitigated installation inefficiencies in harsh offshore conditions. For future projects, recommendations include prioritizing fisheries-specific baselines over broad surveys, standardizing regional monitoring for comparability, and quantifying uncertainties in BACI analyses to define biologically meaningful thresholds, thereby building empirical confidence in minimal ecological disruptions.

References

  1. https://us.orsted.com/renewable-energy-solutions/offshore-wind/block-island-wind-farm
  2. https://www.power-technology.com/projects/block-island-wind-farm/
  3. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/wind-project-sites/block-island-wind-farm
  4. https://www.landscapeperformance.org/case-study-briefs/block-island-wind-farm
  5. https://www.nenc.news/wbur/2025-10-22/7-numbers-that-explain-offshore-winds-impact-in-new-england
  6. https://realoffshorewind.com/blockisland
  7. https://tos.org/oceanography/article/effects-of-the-block-island-wind-farm-on-coastal-resources-lessons-learned
  8. https://ecori.org/offshore-wind-supporters-angered-by-misleading-information-from-r-i-based-opposition-group/
  9. https://www.crc.uri.edu/download/OceanSAMPImplCaseStudy_8.23_FINAL.pdf
  10. https://www.gza.com/projects/block-island-offshore-wind-farm
  11. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/state-policies-can-unleash-u-s-commercial-offshore-wind-development/
  12. https://nawindpower.com/deepwater-wind-national-grid-sign-20-year-ppa-for-offshore-wind-energy
  13. https://www.sustainablebusiness.com/2009/12/deepwater-wind-signs-ppa-for-first-offshore-wind-farm-46137/
  14. https://www.offshorewind.biz/2011/07/04/ri-supreme-court-upholds-deepwater-winds-power-contract-for-block-island-wind-farm/
  15. https://ripuc.ri.gov/sites/g/files/xkgbur841/files/eventsactions/docket/4111-Deepwater-Moore%25282-16-10%2529.pdf
  16. https://www.cesa.org/block-island-offshore-wind-farm-set-the-stage-for-further-clean-energy-development/
  17. https://thepublicsradio.org/episode/how-did-rhode-island-get-the-first-offshore-wind-farm-in-the-country/
  18. https://energy.ri.gov/renewable-energy/wind/wind-siting
  19. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960148124021943
  20. https://www.nae.usace.army.mil/portals/74/docs/topics/deepwaterwind/ea17sep2014.pdf
  21. https://www.wri.org/snapshots/community-benefits-snapshot-block-island-wind-farm-community-benefits-agreement
  22. https://www.crmc.ri.gov/news/2014_1117_dww.html
  23. https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/environment/2014/05/08/20140508-deepwater-wind-receives-first-permits-for-block-island-wind-farm-ece/35349965007/
  24. https://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/Article/497044/corps-approves-deepwater-winds-permit-request-to-construct-five-wind-turbines-o/
  25. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/NMFS-2014-BlockIsland.pdf
  26. https://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/interior-offers-first-right-of-way-for-renewable-energy-transmission-in-federal-waters
  27. https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1202&context=law_review
  28. https://www.nrel.gov/news/detail/features/2017/americas-wind-energy-future-looks-seaward
  29. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/BlockIsland_2012.pdf
  30. https://www.powereng.com/library/block-island-wind-farm-submarine-cable-project/
  31. https://www.kokosing.biz/projects/block-island-wind-farm/
  32. https://www.gza.com/projects/block-island-wind-interconnection-substations
  33. https://rmi.org/blog_2015_06_19_from_diesel_to_wind_on_block_island/
  34. https://www.snappacharters.com/block-island-windfarm.html
  35. https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/block-island-wind-farm-completes-first-steel-in-the-water/
  36. https://maritime-executive.com/article/first-turbine-installed-at-block-island
  37. https://www.crmc.ri.gov/windenergy/dwblockisland.html
  38. https://eos.org/features/ocean-terrain-and-the-engineering-challenges-for-offshore-wind-farms
  39. https://www.fugro.com/expertise/case-studies/ensuring-structural-integrity-for-first-us-offshore-wind-farm
  40. https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/us-conditions-drive-innovation-offshore-wind-foundations
  41. https://www.enr.com/articles/37931-drop-anchor-foundations-set-for-block-island-wind-farm
  42. https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/renewable-future-oil-and-gas-industry
  43. https://www.powermag.com/first-u-s-commercial-offshore-wind-farm-starts-operations/
  44. https://www.marinelog.com/offshore/renewables/block-island-offshore-wind-farm-starts-commercial-operation/
  45. https://ecori.org/2016-12-1-one-turbine-offline-but-block-island-wind-farm-a-go/
  46. https://www.offshorewind.biz/2017/02/07/all-5-block-island-wind-farm-turbines-now-spinning/
  47. https://www.powermag.com/nations-first-offshore-wind-farm-releases-community-from-decades-of-diesel/
  48. https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/environment/2023/05/18/is-the-block-island-wind-farm-generating-electricity-what-to-know-about-ri-offshore-wind-farm/70227020007/
  49. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/block-island-wind-ryan-prince
  50. https://www.rechargenews.com/wind/turbines-stop-at-us-offshore-wind-trailblazer-block-island-after-stress-fatigue-found-in-germany/2-1-1028318
  51. https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/Common/ViewDoc.aspx?DocRefId=%257BE7F04416-B795-4F0B-86D9-0FCFF83CF22C%257D
  52. https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/2021/08/14/block-island-offshore-wind-farm-offline-two-months-due-to-maintenance-and-safety-concerns/8122841002/
  53. https://www.landscapeperformance.org/sites/default/files/Block-Island-Wind-Farm-Methods.pdf
  54. https://ecori.org/2021-8-9-block-island-wind-turbines-motionless-due-to-routine-summer-maintenance/
  55. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/we.2815
  56. https://www.facebook.com/groups/blockisland/posts/7905160322886235/
  57. https://www.facebook.com/groups/988190985588892/posts/1266322367775751/
  58. https://ripuc.ri.gov/sites/g/files/xkgbur841/files/2023-05/EC-2022-39%2520--%2520Block%2520Island%2520Transmission%2520Cable%2520Outage%2520-%2520November%252018%252C%25202022.pdf
  59. https://csg-erc.org/first-in-the-nation-offshore-wind-farm-comes-online-in-rhode-island/
  60. https://www.industrialinfo.com/news/article.jsp?newsitemID=247725
  61. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01052017/block-island-wind-farm-deepwater-wind-renewable-energy-climate-change/
  62. https://green-giraffe.com/publication/news/project-block-island-wind-farm-reaches-financial-close/
  63. https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/402486c8/global-offshore-wind-usa
  64. https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/wind/expensive-offshore-wind-farm-becomes-operational/
  65. https://atomicinsights.com/first-offshore-wind-farm-us-completed-details-foak-costs-schedule/
  66. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/14/science/wind-power-block-island.html
  67. https://justfacts.votesmart.org/public-statement/525531/governor-carcieri-commends-deepwater-and-national-grid-for-new-power-purchase-agreement&speechType=4
  68. https://patch.com/rhode-island/northkingstown/block-island-r-i-wind-turbine-electric-rates-40-40
  69. https://www.islandinstitute.org/island-journal/the-cable-is-the-key/
  70. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/22/climate/block-island-rhode-wind-turbines.html
  71. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/dec/29/deepwater-wind/deepwater-wind-says-electricity-rates-block-island/
  72. https://www.masterresource.org/offshore/offshore-wind-rhode-island/
  73. https://www.boem.gov/environment/benthic-and-epifaunal-monitoring-during-operation-block-island-wind-farm-rhode-island
  74. https://afspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/mcf2.10265
  75. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Carey-et-al-2020-Coastal-Resources.pdf
  76. https://cdn.orsted.com/-/media/www/docs/corp/us/block-island-environmental-studies/acoustic-survey-for-birds-and-bats_biwf_2020.pdf
  77. https://web.uri.edu/offshore-renewable-energy/ate/do-we-know-how-many-birds-and-bats-are-killed-by-wind-turbines-per-year/
  78. https://www.fws.gov/story/wind-farm-beneath-their-wings
  79. https://web.uri.edu/offshore-renewable-energy/ate/how-are-birds-affected-by-the-block-island-wind-farm-and-how-do-they-interact-with-the-wind-turbines/
  80. https://www.crmc.ri.gov/windenergy/dwblockisland/PostConstructionAvianMonitoring.pdf
  81. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Hutchison-et-al-2020-Block-Island.pdf
  82. https://www.crc.uri.edu/download/Perkins.pdf
  83. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0928765518302902
  84. https://environment-review.yale.edu/support-and-opposition-offshore-wind-power-us-clash-perceptions-and-reality
  85. https://www.golocalprov.com/news/americas-offshore-wind-industry-began-with-a-ri-gop-governor-pushing-a
  86. https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2014/09/13/deepwater-wind-approved/
  87. https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1850&context=theses
  88. https://rinewstoday.com/block-island-and-newport-preservationists-fight-to-protect-rhode-island-from-massive-wind-farms/
  89. https://www.nrdc.org/bio/kit-kennedy/us-offshore-wind-major-milestones-and-promising-future
  90. https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/wind/offshore-wind-experiences-problems-with-transmission-cables/
  91. https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/74191.pdf
  92. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148122017670
  93. https://www.bsee.gov/sites/bsee.gov/files/2024-01/TAP%2520806%2520Block%2520Island%2520Structural%2520Fatigue%2520.pdf
  94. https://www.masterresource.org/offshore-windpower-issues/brooks-rhode-island-wind/
  95. https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy25osti/92118.pdf
  96. https://efifoundation.org/insights/siting-isnt-simple-for-offshore-wind/
  97. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation/pdf/AEO2023_LCOE_report.pdf
  98. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/08/f65/2018%2520Offshore%2520Wind%2520Market%2520Report%2520Presentation.pdf
  99. https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/life-cycle-assessment
  100. https://energy-musings.com/energy-musings-october-4-2022/
  101. https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/secretary-jewell-director-hopper-laud-construction-nation%25E2%2580%2599s-first-offshore-wind-farm
  102. https://seagrant.gso.uri.edu/lessons-from-u-s-s-first-offshore-wind-farm/
  103. https://tos.org/oceanography/article/offshore-wind-energy-and-benthic-habitat-changes-lessons-from-block-island-wind-farm
  104. https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/Common/ViewDoc.aspx?DocRefId=%257BA302A25C-8A41-41A7-AFC9-AEF33ED47A6C%257D
  105. https://www.mottmac.com/en-us/projects/block-island-wind-farm/
  106. https://www.abs-group.com/Knowledge-Center/Insights/Lessons-Learned-from-First-US-Offshore-Wind-Farm-Design-Manufacturing-and-Construction/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.