Opinion/Letters: Permanent LNG facility is wrong for Aquidneck Island

Wind farms are not the solution

The article by Bradley Campbell in The Providence Journal supporting wind farms appears strikingly similar to a piece I recall by John Podesta's Center for American Progress, which has been leading the charge in advocating for wind farms while criticizing those who oppose them. Like much of Podesta's material, it begins with a personal attack on those who hold a different viewpoint, accusing them of being financed by "Big Oil" and other questionable groups.

The article proceeds with familiar rhetoric, erroneously suggesting energy from offshore wind is our best solution to combat carbon emissions and to save our oceans and ecosystems. Before spending billions or trillions of dollars, it's crucial to critically assess the true impact of wind farms.

One concern is the potential harm caused by acoustic seafloor testing conducted by wind farm developers. While there's reasonable cause to suspect that this testing is harming whales, we lack definitive evidence. A recent article in the New York Post summarizes the evidence.

Another aspect to consider is the economics of wind farms. Presently, the cost of wind energy is approximately $0.14 per kWh, significantly higher than the $0.03-0.04 per kWh for natural gas-generated energy, as reported on the ISO-NE website. All of the electricity displaced by wind electricity in New England is and will be generated using natural gas. Thus, New England consumers will be paying $0.14 to displace $0.03-0.04 energy. Furthermore, the builders of the proposed wind farms off the New England coast including BP, Equinor and Ørsted are now seeking additional funding on top of existing taxpayer subsidies, and these installations will need replacement between 20 and 30 years.

In essence, wind farms produce expensive and unreliable electricity. They can't replace old power plants, which are essential for grid stability during windless periods. Moreover, their environmental impact is uncertain, with some studies suggesting they may require more carbon emissions during construction than they could ever offset. Windmills are a very inferior way to generate electricity. Without massive subsidies, they would not be built.

Instead of wind farms, we should consider more reliable alternatives. One or two combined cycle natural gas generating plants (GCTs) could produce as much electricity as the wind farms with a much smaller environmental footprint.

From an economic perspective, grid reliability, and carbon emissions reduction, a better approach would be to prioritize low-carbon natural gas while concurrently investing in small modular nuclear plants such as those being built by Rolls Royce in England. These plants are self-regulating, safe, have a small footprint that does not disturb whales, scallop fishing, mar the view out to sea, run 24 hours a day whatever the wind is doing, and produce no carbon whatsoever. In the long run, resources should be put into developing nuclear fusion which will eventually produce virtually unlimited energy with no byproducts.

Miles Bidwell, Portsmouth

Permanent LNG facility is wrong for Aquidneck Island

Following the natural gas outage that left Aquidneck Island in the cold for a week in 2019, National Grid proposed the liquefied natural gas storage facility on Old Mill Lane in Portsmouth as a temporary measure to protect our island from outages during peak winter demand. When presented with options for reducing the risk of future outages, the municipalities of Aquidneck Island made it clear that the facility on Old Mill Lane was not the preferred option.

Since then, scientists have issued even more dire warnings about the rate at which we are warming our climate with fossil fuel consumption (including fracked gas) and carbon output. The preferred solution is to create opportunity for customers to transition to cleaner alternatives and away from their reliance on fossil fuels.

Now, as so often happens with temporary solutions with higher risks but lower costs, this stopgap measure is being floated by the utility – Rhode Island Energy (RIE) – as a permanent installation. A residential neighborhood, where families live and play, however, is no place for a dangerous and noisy liquified natural gas facility.

Along with neighbors and many other leaders on the island, we stand firmly against the Energy Facility Siting Board granting permanent siting of this facility – especially because frequent periodic assessments and proof of efforts to reduce the demand for gas on the island have not been and may not be required. Moreover, allowing RIE to keep this facility permanently in place will not help us meet the carbon reduction goals of the RI Act on Climate.

The long-term solution, which has been before the utility since the gas outage, should have been greater investment in cleaner energy alternatives. Yet, RIE is apparently not pursuing a concerted, dedicated effort to move away from gas and oil heating and press for more energy-efficient buildings.

The bottom line is that all available options involve cost, sacrifice or risk to some portion of our population, but the neighbors of this facility should not be asked to bear all of these. We must all start to make the permanent shift toward safer, more sustainable energy, or we will doom ourselves and future generations to increasing catastrophic rising sea levels and dangerous weather events.

Rep. Terri Cortvriend (D-Dist. 72, Portsmouth, Middletown)

Rep. Michelle E. McGaw (D-Dist. 71, Portsmouth, Tiverton, Little Compton)

Sen. Linda Ujifusa (D-Dist. 11, Portsmouth, Bristol)

There for Middletown

Now that the dust has settled regarding the school bond, I would like to respond to Mr. Huet's letter whereby he alleged I was misinforming the public about the financial risk of the bond, that I was only concerned about my taxes and was not particularly involved with the MPS.

All information myself and Terry Flynn spoke of on WADK was taken from written materials and presentations from the Town Hall, School Building Committee and project consultants.

Regarding tax increases, I am concerned about the 37.7% of residents that are age 55 and over and the average residents of Middletown that have a per capita income of $47,714. (US Census Report 2022) That does not leave much left over after you pay food bills, rent/mortgage, car expenses, etc.

My parental involvement in MPS goes back to 1993 when my son entered kindergarten and completed in 2008 when my daughter graduated. During these years my husband and I attended PTG meetings, volunteered as chaperones, participated in committees to select new a HS principal, served on the HS School Improvement Team, taught Hands-on Science, hosted dinners for basketball and volleyball, I started the school food committee (as required by the USDA School Lunch Guidelines) and attended parent nights. In 2009 I became a substitute school nurse for K-12. In addition to performing required duties, I have given out my money for school lunches to kids that had none, given coats to kids that were without, connected kids who "graduated" from foster care at age 18/19 to the MLK food bank and brought in snacks. I also counselled kids that were interested in a military career given that I spent 21 years in the USAR. ( I want to acknowledge that your full-time school nurses also go over the top for the kids and Middletown is fortunate to have such caring and competent nurses. ) I have attended Economic Advisory Committee meetings (zoom) when they were discussing enhancing student vocational opportunities and I currently serve on the town's Juvenile Hearing Board. In closing Mr. Huet, I believe I have done my share for MPS and its youth.

Audrey Macleod Pfeiffer, Middletown

This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: Letters: Permanent LNG facility is wrong for Aquidneck Island