Maryland’s Legislature passed a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) that requires all state utilities and competitive retail suppliers to obtain an increasing percentage of their electric power from renewable energy sources. By 2022, 22.5% of retail sales must be sourced from renewables, 18% of which can be from wind energy. The amount of capacity needed to fulfill the portion of Maryland’s RPS that can be satisfied by offshore wind energy is 3,900 MW.
The results of this study indicate that Maryland’s offshore wind resource is large enough to supply the state with 67% of its electric needs, even if using only existing offshore wind power technology (monopile, <35m). Offshore wind could provide 179% of its electric needs as the industry matures and deeper water technologies become commercialized.
The resource is large enough to not only satisfy all of Maryland’s demand for electricity, but part or all of the demand in neighboring inland states as well. Maryland has a commitment to renewable energy. The state’s legislature passed a Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) that requires all Maryland utilities and competitive retail suppliers to obtain an increasing percentage of their electric power from renewable energy sources.
By 2022, 22.5% of retail sales must be sourced from renewables, 18% of which can be from wind energy. The amount of capacity needed to fulfill the portion of Maryland’s RPS which can be satisfied by offshore wind energy is 3,900 MW, or about 3/4 of the available near]shore resource. Building out Maryland’s offshore wind potential could benefit the state’s economy for offshore construction, maintenance, supply chain, and/or turbine manufacturing.
Each aspect represents a separate opportunity; including turbine installation, and operations and maintenance facilities, which need to be located near the project. Also, with manufacturing anywhere in the region, some sourcing of turbine components would likely be from Maryland’s manufacturing sector. In contrast, continuing to buy fossil electricity from the market, delivered from distant fossil power plants, will not meet environmental goals and is unlikely to have any beneficial effect on the Maryland economy.
Moreover, the Delaware Bluewater Wind Project bid and power purchase agreement suggests that large]scale offshore wind projects can be cost competitive with new fossil fuel generation after accounting for future fossil fuel prices, likely costs to emit carbon into the atmosphere, and other factors.
In sum, Maryland’s offshore wind power potential appears to be very large, on a scale comparable to the entire state’s need for electricity. Development of this resource appears to be the easiest and most cost]effective way to meet Maryland’s renewable portfolio standard with instate generation, serve increasing electric load with new generaas needed, improve on environmental goals of reducing CO2 and improving air quality, and modernize and diversify its economy.
Building out Maryland’s offshore wind potential could benefit the state’s economy for offshore construction, maintenance, supply chain, and/or turbine manufacturing, according to the study.
In addition, with manufacturing anywhere in the region, some sourcing of wind turbine components would likely be from Maryland’s manufacturing sector. In contrast, continuing to buy fossil electricity from the market, delivered from distant fossil power plants, will not meet environmental goals and is unlikely to have any beneficial effect on the Maryland economy, the study says.
In order to develop a total estimate of the wind power potential in Maryland, the total area in which wind turbines could be installed was calculated by combining a number of factors. First, the study area was defined. For this analysis, we defined the study area as Maryland’s northern and southern land borders, extended due east in the ocean.
Using detailed, satellite bathymetric (water depth) data obtained from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the study area was divided into four segments based on the turbine foundation technology most suitable within a particular depth range. The four depth segments were labeled by turbine foundation technology as follows: Monopile (0]35m), Jacket (35]50m), Advanced Jacket (50]100m), and Floating (100]1,000m) (See Figure SP]2, below). The study area did not go beyond 1,000 m to keep the results tied to existing offshore wind technologies; no existing turbines have been demonstrated beyond that depth.
Understanding the resource associated with each depth region, rather than just producing an estimate for the study area as a whole, provides insight into the timing and feasibility of building out the resource. For example, monopile technology has over fifteen years of operation experience in Europe and can be implemented today in the U.S. Jacket structures have been deployed on a limited basis and have only a couple of years of operational experience. Floating turbines are just now beginning prototyping and have years of testing and further development before they are available in the market.
www.abell.org/pubsitems/env_offshore-210.pdf
www.abell.org/pubsitems/env_offshore.summary-210.pdf
www.abell.org/publications/detail.asp
