NOW IS THE MOST DANGEROUS TIME. THIS IS WHEN WE WILL HAVE TO WATCH THE BACKROOM POLITICAL MOVES AND TRY TO KEEP THE MMS PROCESS HONEST. STAY TUNED FOR UPDATES.
IS THE USFW THE ONLY GOVERNMENT AGENCY WITH THE GUTS TO DO THE RIGHT THING?
THE UNITED STATES FISH WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFW) ABSOLUTELY TEARS INTO MMS FOR AN INADEQUATE, INCOMPLETE, MISLEADING and WORTHLESS DEIS. THIS FEDERAL AGENCY HAS STEPPED UP TO THE PLATE, IGNORED THE POLITICAL PRESSURE and MADE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR TO ALL THAT THIS MMS DEIS IS A FARCE AND THAT THE DAMAGE THAT THIS INDUSTRIAL WIND FARM WILL DO TO OUR NANTUCKET SOUND HAS STILL NOT BEEN ADDRESSED.
Thank You Fish and Wildlife For Telling the TRUTH!
READ THE HARD HITTING USFW EXECUTIVE STUDY IN THE PDF PROVIDED TO THE RIGHT.
The Cape Wind project generated enough controversy to prompt some 40,000 comments to be submitted to the Minerals Management Service, setting a record at the agency.
By the time federal regulators stopped accepting public comments about the proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm on Monday, two of the letters had already raised some eyebrows among the project’s critics. That’s because the two letters were signed by the same person, state Division of Marine Fisheries director Paul Diodati, but they struck noticeably different tones.
The first letter, which was dated Feb. 20, recaps many of the fishing industry’s concerns. While the sound’s Horseshoe Shoal section is nowhere near as busy as the heavily fished parts of Georges Bank or Massachusetts Bay, some fishermen rely on the shoal to catch a range of critters, including sea bass, flounder, squid and conches. The fishermen worry that 130 giant wind turbine towers spread over 24 square miles could jeopardize those catches.
Diodati’s first letter spells out the loss of access that fishermen could face as well as concerns about rescue crews reaching a troubled boat in the area.
But the second letter, dated March 7, tones down the rhetoric considerably, reducing the section that lists the potential impacts to fisheries to just a few sentences. The section also mentions a couple of possible benefits, such as certain species becoming attracted to the newly built tower foundations.
Neither letter mentions the stance of Diodati’s boss, Gov. Deval Patrick. But the state’s fishermen know Patrick was one of the most vocal supporters of Cape Wind when he campaigned for governor in 2006.
Tom Osmers, a shellfish constable in West Tisbury, says he was disappointed by the shift in tone. However, he also says the state agency is probably focusing on mitigation efforts with the understanding that the project is going to happen anyway. “They’re just trying to make the best of what they seem to think is inevitable,” Osmers says.
But Ed Barrett, a Marshfield fisherman who is president of the Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership, says he sees the long arm of Patrick’s politics at work in the Division of Marine Fisheries. “It’s pretty obvious that someone told them that they were going to look the other way,” Barrett says.
Diodati, for his part, denies that Patrick or his top aides interceded on the issue. He readily admits that there is a change in tone between the letters, but says that shift was intentional.
Diodati explains the change this way: His agency had initially thought the deadline for commenting on the project was Feb. 20. He was out of the state on vacation with his family that week, but worked remotely with his staffers to pull together a submission that reprised many of the agency’s previous comments.
When Diodati returned to the office and learned that the comment period had not expired, he says he met with his aides to take a more thoughtful approach.
“We actually wanted to say things that could be done to actually improve the project, rather than say we think this is a problem,” Diodati says. “They might be different in tone. In fact, I hope there is, because that was our intent.”
Diodati says he figures that his agency’s concerns with the project clearly had been spelled out in previous regulatory filings. The agency, he says, hasn’t changed its opinion about any of those previous concerns.
Mark Rodgers, a spokesman for project developer Cape Wind Associates, says he’s not surprised by the changes between the letters. He says they mirror a changing attitude among federal fishing regulators as they realize that the project’s effect on fishing won’t be severe. He says Cape Wind’s research shows that only about 4 percent of the sound’s entire fishing catch comes from Horseshoe Shoal.
But Barrett’s group submitted its own study, which estimates that $8 million to $13 million could be lost to commercial fishermen over the life of the project. While the developer says Horseshoe Shoal will stay open for commercial fishermen, Barrett says most trawlers will steer clear because of the navigation hazards posed by the windmills.
That’s just one example on a long list of differing opinions about the project’s potential impacts. It’s hard to know how the folks at the MMS will be able to review all 40,000 comments and make a final decision this year.
But some letters are going to stand out among the sea of submissions. Diodati can rest assured that his agency’s comments will be among them.
Jon Chesto is the business editor of the Patriot Ledger. He may be reached at jchesto@ledger.com.
Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe RIPS Into MMS for Poor Treatment of Tribal Issues During the Cape Wind DEIS Process.
Rodney E. Cluck Minerals Management Service U.S. Department of the Interior 31 Elden Street Herndon, VA 02170 Dear Mr. Cluck, I represent the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe of Massachusetts, and we would like to comment on the DEIS for the Cape Wind Energy Project. The Mashpee are members of the Great Wampanoag Nation (the People of the First Light).Our name defines who we are and one reason we must be heard on this project. In your document you speak of “the land associated with the Wampanoag Tribe of Mashpee as well in land from the coast line and given the wooded vegetation and fairly level topography, there would not be a view from this location.” Well, with your limited communication with my tribe you don’t understand the significant cultural and religious need for us to have a clear unobstructed view of the southeast horizon. Under 800.5(A)(2)(V) we feel you must revisit this discussion in our 106 consultation. The Wampanoag people have inhabited the land from the western shore of Narragansett Bay to the Neponset estuaries since time immemorial, even the land now called Horseshoe Shoals. Our oral traditions tell us this land was walked and lived on by our ancestors.We find no mention of this in your document even though we came to Washington with this information. The Vibracor-sampling information (4.1.1.1 and Figures 4.1.1-8 and 4.1.1-9) provide only enough data to support our oral history, but not enough samples to disprove it.A total of 87 borings over 24 square miles with sediment waves and changing topography are not enough. We also would like to state that consultation should have been done before such an invasive process was undertaken (800.5(A)). In the part of the document, Construction and Decommissioning 5.3.3.5.1, the conclusion states, “…should any archaeological resources be encountered during construction or decommissioning operations would be halted immediately.”First, if remains were found in 20 – 60 feet of water, who would know? Between the depth and turbulence, who would see? Furthermore, who would care? The next thing I would like to address is some inaccurate facts about our tribe.First, your numbers on our population are incorrect.We have 620 members living in Mashpee and an additional 402 throughout Barnstable County.This gives you 1,022 Wampanoag (People of the First Light) directly affected by this project, and a potential of 3,104 total membership affected (per Patricia Oakley, Genealogist for the tribe). Next, our land holdings within the boundaries of Mashpee are 130.06 acres.These numbers could have been easily confirmed by contact with our tribe (4.3.3.1.3, Paragraph 2). I would also like to add that you have not looked at the plight of Horseshoe Crab.Increased fishing of the Horseshoe Crab for bait and biomedical use had increased pressure because of closure of the Delaware Fishery.Nantucket Sound is significant habitat and must be protected.If the proposed action costs one generation of juvenile crabs because of siltation, we will suffer, and the Red Not will suffer too.(**Please review Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Marine Fisheries, Mass. 2007 Horseshoe Crab (Limulus Polyphemus) Compliance Report). After spending a great amount of time with this report (DEIS), I have found a lot of the data is old and outdated, as is the technology of Cape Wind.I think before we devastate Horseshoe Shoals, we must look at all our options, such as Blue H USA’s Deep Water Power Project, Tidal Power Projects and Land Based Wind Projects. The Minerals Management Service mission describes in paragraph three, “The MMS strives to fulfill its responsibilities through the general guiding principles of:(1) being responsive to the public’s concerns and interests by maintaining a dialogue with all potentially affected parties and (2) carrying out its programs with an emphasis on working to enhance the quality of life for all Americans…”.Following these guidelines, MMS should consider the value of Nantucket Sound to all the People of Cape Cod, not just the project. We, the People of the First Light, have always shared our resources since the beginning.We do not think it is fair (again) to give a shared historic, cultural, commercial and recreational resource to a private developer.We do not think it is fair to take a fishery resource away from life-long fishermen without looking at the options. We pray you will not let our ancestors be disturbed when there are so many other solutions. In closing my comments on the DEIS for the Cape Wind Energy Project, I hope Minerals Management Service goes back and reviews all of their data.I look forward to starting the 106 consultation soon.
Respectfully yours,
George “Chuckie” Green, Jr
PLEASE WATCH THIS NEW 12 MINUTE VIDEO. IT WILL MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO TAKE ACTION NOW. WE ARE NOW DOWN TO THE WIRE AND NEED YOUR HELP TO SAVE OUR BEACHES AND NANTUCKET SOUND. PLEASE CLICK ON THE VIDEO LINK
TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT THE FUTURE OF YOUR BEACH.. STEP UP AND SPEAK OUT NOW OR KISS IT GOOD BYE FOREVER!!
THIS IS A SECTION OF A LARGER PICTURE PREPARED BY THE DEVELOPER-THIS IS THE FUTURE VIEW OF CRAIGVILLE BEACH, CENTERVILLE- THE VIEW FROM EVERY BEACH WILL BE DESTROYED BY THE 43 STORY STEEL FOREST COVERING AN AREA THE SIZE OF THE ISLAND OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK. FIND WHAT YOUR BEACH WILL LOOK LIKE BELOW
WINDSTOP IS ONCE AGAIN OUT FRONT IN THE WIND WAR
WINDSTOP SUPPORTERS LET CAPE WIND'S JIM GORDON KNOW-STOP THE STEEL FOREST!
CAPE COD, MARTHAS VINEYARD and NOW NANTUCKET SPOKE OUT AGAINST WIND PLANT. IT WAS A LAND SLIDE VICTORY!!!! CAPE COD TIMES Nantucket residents sound off on wind farm
Wind farm opponents Cliff Carroll, left, and Jon Peros make their feelings known yesterday outside Nantucket High School before the hearing conducted by the U.S. Minerals Management Service.
NANTUCKET — In the bright afternoon sun, Brian Borgeson's face turned red with the effort of unloading bay scallops from his skiff onto the wharf in Nantucket Harbor.
"These are the days you live out here for," he said exultantly.
NANTUCKET VIEWS ON WIND FARM
Tom Dougherty, semi-retired, has lived on Nantucket for 11 years working as a part-time carpenter.
"I'm a scientist by education so I naturally lean towards being pro-technology. I like the idea of a wind farm. In general I feel the concept of wind power is long overdue for water applications.
"The principal argument against it is really aesthetics. Pretty much the argument is, 'I don't want to look at it.' I find that a really specious argument for something as important as this."
Aure Hamel, 42, a retail jeweler, rents in town, and has lived on the island for 12 years.
"I'm totally against it. It has nothing to do with the aesthetics. I've done a lot of research and there was not very much research done in the U.S.
"Doppler radar (of small planes) looks almost identical to the spinning turbines. It can't tell the difference.
"Sand displacement (in Nantucket Sound) is huge. The wind never stops blowing, the sand never stops moving. There is no stable ground on Horseshoe Shoals.
"People have been talking about it a long time. It's getting worn out. People are getting exhausted, and that's what the developer wants."
Doug Foregger is a real estate company chief executive officer.
"No one who is opposed to this project is opposed to wind power, but everybody is against the location.
"Should we put a wind farm at the top of Yosemite National Park? Nantucket Sound is our national park.
"Looking at it initially, I thought there was no way it was going to be built there. Most now believe that offshore wind power and tidal turbines are right around the corner and that land-based wind turbines are more viable.
"Bet you any amount of money if someone were to build towers out there for anything other than wind power the environmentalists would find something wrong with them.
"I think there is green guilt and that, morally, they are afraid of being a NIMBY. They're not looking at this like they were putting up wind turbines in Yosemite and the Grand Canyon.
"I think they did very limited studies of other locations.
"Why is the developer doing this? Because there is money to be made. This is about him being able to sell his energy credits on this project."
Darwin Thomas, 81, (gave two thumbs up in response to whether he was in favor or against the wind farm) has lived 26 years on Nantucket.
He is retired from painting and a decorating business and served in WWII as a motor machinist onboard a submarine.
"We got to do things about energy and pollution and all that stuff. I think a lot of the islanders are against it for aesthetic reasons.
"Oh no, it's going to spoil our whole view, but I see nothing wrong with it.
"Some are for, some against it. Don't look back, we've got to go forward.
"I understand why the fishermen are hollering so much."
Mike Bigusiak, a former commercial fisherman, has lived on Nantucket for 20 years.
"We need alternative energy, not a question about that, but Horseshoe Shoals is very important for fisheries. We didn't fish there, but friends out of Hyannis Harbor, they fish there.
I signed on to SOS (Save Our Sound). At the time, I felt very strong against (the wind farm), but we need alternative energy. I just don't see why we have a private company doing it instead of NStar."
Even though he probably had too many scallops to shuck to make last night's public hearing on the wind farm proposed for Nantucket Sound, he certainly had his opinions.
"I think alternative energy is a great idea. I'm all for it, but Nantucket is the Indian word for not in my backyard," he quipped.
Borgeson, like many Nantucketers interviewed yesterday and who later spoke at the hearing in the Nantucket High School auditorium, was torn between the nation's need for alternative energy sources and the belief that the Sound is the wrong place for wind turbines.
Yesterday's hearing was the second of four scheduled this week on a draft environmental report on Cape Wind Associates' plan to build 130 wind turbines in the Sound. Nantucket's seaside views would be the least affected of the land masses surrounding the Sound, with the proposed turbines at least 14 miles from shore.
But aesthetics was only one of the concerns for the 350 islanders and visitors who attended yesterday's five-hour hearing and those interviewed beforehand.
Nantucket Shellfish Warden Dwayne Dougan said the Sound could be an unfriendly and unpredictable place.
"I was flying back and forth (between the island and the Cape) for a couple of years, and I'd see ice forming and breaking up from one side to the other," Dougan said before the hearing.
Dougan also couldn't resist pointing out the irony that, with the push for alternative energy, his request to put solar shingles on his home was turned down by the island's historic district commission.
At last night's hearing, other islanders saw hypocrisy in neighbors who have contributed to the development boom on Nantucket but opposed development of a wind farm in the Sound.
"The sweeping vistas of the middle moors have been forever marred by this ever encroaching march of mansions," Alison Inglis said. "These gargantuan structures are much more visible than the proposed wind farm."
A long line of wind farm supporters from the island said Cape Wind was necessary to move the nation further down the path toward more renewable sources of energy.
Donald Freedman said he was "in the middle of the road," when Cape Wind was first proposed. But after he heard the facts, Freedman said he was convinced the project was a good idea. "We need it so Nantucket can be a beautiful place for not just our children but our grandchildren," he said.
Other Cape Wind supporters tried to dispel concerns over safety.
"I've been sailing Nantucket Harbor and the Sound for over 70 years," Pete Sawyer said.
"I think even the Figawi can manage to sail through a channel that's a half-mile wide," he said, referring to the famed summer sailboat race between Hyannis and Nantucket.
But ferry and aviation representatives said safety is a concern, and they urged the U.S. Minerals Management Service to conduct a painstaking review of Cape Wind's plan. The federal agency is conducting this week's hearings and represents one of the biggest regulatory hurdles remaining for Cape Wind to clear.
"I encourage you to take your time on this issue," Nantucket Memorial Airport manager Al Peterson said.
Fishermen were well represented at last night's hearing.
Nantucket fisherman Bob DeCosta, who said he has 40 years of fishing experience, was worried that construction of the turbines could devastate fish larvae and eggs that are spawned at the proposed wind farm site.
"I am very concerned about devastation to habitat," he said.
In January, the Minerals Management Service released a draft environmental report on Cape Wind. Following a public comment period that ends on April 21, the federal agency will prepare final report on Cape Wind. The Minerals Management Service, which is a branch of the U.S. Department of the Interior, is expected to release a decision on the project sometime next winter.
The Minerals Management Service's public hearings continue at 5 p.m. today at Martha's Vineyard Regional High School in Oak Bluffs.
The venue for the final hearing was changed yesterday to accommodate more people. The Clark Athletic Center at the University of Massachusetts in South Boston is now set to host the last hearing at 6 p.m. tomorrow.
Patrick Cassidy can be reached at pcassidy@capecodonline.com. Doug Fraser can be reached at dfraser@capecodonline.com. CAPE COD TIMES
Opponents of the Nantucket Sound wind farm square off against supporters outside Mattacheese Middle School in West Yarmouth yesterday.Cape Cod Times/Ron Schloerb, WINDSTOP CO-FOUNDER ROB BUSSIERE FRONT AND CENTER
WEST YARMOUTH — The first of four highly anticipated public hearings on the wind farm proposed for Nantucket Sound did not disappoint.
From faux pirates and scuba divers to real miners from West Virginia and dueling testimony literally sung into the record, last night's hearing at Mattacheese Middle School took on the diverse and, at times, carnival atmosphere familiar to those who have attended previous hearings on Cape Wind.
About 900 people crowded into the school auditorium.
"Great idea, wrong location," opponents of the project shouted outside the school as they waved a tennis court-sized sign in the cool evening breeze. Proponents raised a forest of pro-wind-farm signs above the blue tarp in an attempt to steal the media spotlight.
In the background, costumed demonstrators mingled with men and women dressed in business attire. Signs on both sides of the debate lined the driveway in front of the school.
For the first hour of the public comment period local politicians spoke for and against the plan by Cape Wind Associates to build 130 wind turbines on Horseshoe Shoal in the Sound.
State Sen. Robert O'Leary, D-Barnstable, began the night with a comparison of an ocean management bill he had worked on earlier in the day and the review of Cape Wind.
"It puts the public purpose ahead of the private purpose," O'Leary said about the state legislation. "That is in sharp contrast in what I've seen going forward with this project."
O'Leary and other speakers directed their comments to a panel of three U.S. Minerals Management officials who sat stoically throughout the six-hour event. The federal agency is responsible for the lead role in reviewing Cape Wind. MMS released a draft environmental report in January that was mostly favorable toward the project.
The project, first proposed in 2001, has reached a critical point in the permitting process. A final report on Cape Wind is due out by the end of the year and Cape Wind president Jim Gordon said at a press conference held yesterday afternoon that he hoped to begin construction in 2010.
Most elected officials joined O'Leary to speak out against the project, citing concerns over catastrophic oil spills and impact on the local economy.
"Anyone who would suggest that looking out on these things is not a befouling of the coastline does not have the same sense of aesthetics as I do," said Cape and Islands District Attorney Michael O'Keefe.
State Rep. Matthew Patrick, D-Falmouth, was one of the few politicians who defended Cape Wind.
"My support for Cape Wind was always based on it passing the environmental impact review," Patrick said. The project continues to receive approvals, Patrick said.
If Cape Wind came online the Mirant Canal Power Plant in Sandwich could likely be shut off except for days when there is a peak load on the electrical grid, such as occurs on the hottest summer days, Patrick said.
While local views of the proposed location for Cape Wind were a popular subject of comments, the view from West Virginia homes was raised by a handful of speakers who traveled from that state to testify.
"I'm here representing the people of Appalachia," said Chuck Nelson, from Boone County, W.Va. "You know I used to like the view from my backyard but it's been blown up."
Nelson and other miners, who teamed up with the pro-Cape Wind group, Clean Power Now, said that mountain removal in the South was the alternative to renewable energy.
"Our entire mountain culture is being sacrificed for our so-called cheap energy," Nelson said.
While most speakers sympathized with Nelson and his fellow miners, the Cape and Islands' own culture was at stake, they said.
Mashpee Selectman George "Chuckie" Green asked how the project would be able to care for possible human remains of Mashpee Wampanoag found during construction.
"Tell me how you can do that in 60 feet of water?" he said. "I don't think it can be done."
The effect on marine mammals concerned Sharon Young of Sagamore Beach. Young, who is the Marine Issues Field Director for the Humane Society for the U.S., said that the draft environmental impact statement produced by MMS did not have enough data on marine mammals in the Sound.
"I think this document is a classic example that weight of paper does not equal weight of evidence," she said.
Cliff Caroll of South Yarmouth, a vocal opponent of Cape Wind, said the entire MMS report should be thrown out.
"In my opinion your negligence in this flawed document ... borders on the criminal," Caroll said.
Barbara Hill, executive director of Clean Power Now disagreed.
"The MMS has done an impressive job of preparing this document," she said. Cape Wind has undergone more review than any other nuclear or power plant in Massachusetts and should be built, said Hill, adding, "Future generations will view us as either heroes or fools."
Perhaps one of the most entertaining moments of the night came when Carl Freeman of Orleans sang two ditties in favor of Cape Wind to a pair of Beatles tunes.
Not to be outdone, an opponent of the project raised an iPod and speakers with an anti-wind farm tune in the song list at the end of his comment.
By 10 p.m. more than 60 attendees had spoken of the 186 who had signed up. Another hundred audience members waited their turn.
For Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard that chance comes tonight and tomorrow at 5 p.m.. A hearing is scheduled in South Boston on Thursday.
Patrick Cassidy can be reached at pcassidy@capecodonline.com.
BREAKING NEWS: MMS Releases Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) MMS Proves that OUR ELECTRIC RATES WILL RISE !!! CAPE WIND’S COST OF PRODUCING ELECTRICITY COULD BE DOUBLE WHAT WE PAY!! In the just released Federal MMS document, MMS Consultant Lessly Goudarzi, CEO and Managing Director of OnLocation, Inc./Energy Systems Consulting, reported: “Given the estimated cost of energy is $122/MWh, twice that of the current marketand that this is after the full benefit of tax and RPS incentives, the prospects of entering a long-term purchase power contract would seem low.”
So, now what? What can you do to stop Cape Wind? FIRST GET OUTRAGED!! IT IS NOW OR NEVER!!
Write to MMS by March 20th! Submit your comments online or mail your comments to: MMS CapeWind Energy Project TRC Environmental Corp. Wannalancit Mills 650 Suffolk St. Lowell, MA01854
Attend at least one public hearing! Recruit five friends, relatives, neighbors, or co-workers to do the same. March 10, 6 p.m. Mattacheese Middle School Auditorium March 11, 5 p.m. Nantucket High School Auditorium March 12, 5 p.m. Martha's Vineyard Regional HS Auditorium March 13, 6 p.m. UMASS Boston, South Boston, Campus Center Ballroom
THIS IS IT, IT IS NOW TIME TO STEP UP AND SAVE YOUR BEACH, OUR NANTUCKET SOUND.
Presidential Canidate Mitt Romney Speaks Out Against Cape Wind "TRASHING" Nantucket Sound
Friday March 7, 2008
CAPE COD TIMES
Cape Cod Chamber continues to oppose wind farm
By JOHN D. O'BRIEN
March 07, 2008
The Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce has consistently opposed the construction of 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound, viewing this mammoth project as the industrialization of a fundamental part of our economy and way of life.
The chamber, as with all major public policy issues, thoroughly investigated all aspects of the proposal, and the results of this objective, extensive cost/benefit analysis led us to conclude that the benefits of the wind plant did not exceed the costs associated with this power plant construction. We continue to have our doubts about its effect on prices, air quality and energy independence; at least in the measures that the developer and his adherents expound.
Now the federal Draft Environmental Impact Statement, recently released by the Department of the Interior, confirms the negative economic effects of the proposal. The report concludes that the electricity generated by the turbines would be more than double the average cost of electricity as of January 2007 (12.2 cents per KWH versus 5.87 cents per KWH). This price includes the effects of the Production Tax Credit and other tax incentives.
Peer reviews incorporated into the impact statement conclude that Cape Wind has not adequately explained to the Materials Management Service how, in the absence of long-term contracts, the project is economically viable. It would appear that prospective costs far outweigh projected revenue.
It also is difficult to understand how the developer can insist that the ratepayers of New England could save $25 million directly as a result of this installation. Costs associated with offshore wind farms have been accelerating precipitously, and recent proposed large installations off Long Island and Delaware have been scrapped as not being economically viable.
Consumers might be willing to pay more for clean, renewable energy if the benefits directly led to cleaner air and less use of fossil fuel. We remain skeptical about these claims in light of an understanding of a very complex industry.
All power generation has inherent problems associated with its production. Fossil fuels obviously contribute to global warming, but renewable energy like solar and wind are deemed intermittent and nondispatchable, meaning if the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine, then there is less power generated. In addition, because you cannot store electricity, if the wind blows at midnight but you need the power at 4 in the afternoon, wind power is not very helpful at peak demand times.
Reports from California and New York authorities further reduce efficiency levels from 30-35 percent to below 10 percent at peak demand times. So the idea of shutting down a fossil fuel plant as this project comes online is not evident in Independent System Operator planning (ISO manages the New England system).
Additionally, we still see no comprehensive energy policy that gives state and federal agencies more authority to site offshore wind turbine generators. The public interest in sensitive coastal areas must be represented in other development threats, such as ocean aquaculture, ocean dumping, LNG platforms and any other fixed structure now largely unregulated.
We need the type of proactive planning provisions, such as found in the Oceans Act bill sponsored by Sen. Robert O'Leary, if we are going to modify the Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuary Act, which currently protects Cape Cod and Buzzards Bay. There must be a comprehensive plan for our coastal waters that fundamentally allows for bidding procedures and lease or tax payments for the use of public property. The Department of the Interior has not given us any regulations for offshore development of renewable energy.
Our call for a stronger conservation and energy efficiency program for our region and state appears to be answered by the new energy bill recently passed by the House and Senate and now in conference committee. This energy bill will cap carbon dioxide emissions and promote a host of efficiency measures, where we believe real change can be effected.
The chamber takes very seriously its mission and obligation to be objective about major public policy issues that affect the Cape's economy and its work force. In five important areas, the chamber has taken positions and then acted to improve the well-being of our small businesses and their employees regardless of whether they are members. Economic development, wastewater, transportation, smart growth, and workforce development are all part of a backdrop that reflects a number of concrete, pragmatic policy decisions that have resulted in regional improvements in our economy.
We will continue to be dedicated to the Cape's well-being and we will continue to oppose the project in Nantucket Sound.
John D. O'Brien is government affairs liaison for the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce.
CAPE COD TIMES The price of Cape Wind's power
By AUDRA PARKER
February 25, 2008
John Canevari's recent "My View" in support of Cape Wind continues to promote the myths of this costly project. Cape Wind will not be cheap and its impacts to local stakeholders will not be benign.
Myth No. 1: Cape Wind would produce cheap electricity. Buried deeply in the recently released federal report on Cape Wind is a whopping admission that Cape Wind's power would be two to three times current wholesale prices in the area.
Perhaps in an attempt to make the outrageous cost of Cape Wind seem more reasonable, Canevari quotes current wholesale electricity prices ranging from $60 to $160 per megawatt hour (MWh). But according to ISO New England, the group that operates the electricity grid in New England, the average wholesale price was $66 per MWh over the last two years in southeastern Massachusetts. At the $122 per MWh projected in the federal report, the electricity produced by Cape Wind would be more than double the going rate.
And that cost is after the massive state and federal subsidies that Cape Wind would get — over $1 billion in state renewable energy credits and an additional $300 million from the federal Production Tax Credit. Without these subsidies, the average cost for electricity from Cape Wind would be three times the current average price, or over $190 per MWh.
If you are still skeptical, consider the fact that several other offshore projects have been canceled in the last year because of similar issues — high electric costs to consumers. Following the termination of a multibillion-dollar project off the coast of Texas, the controversial Long Island Power Authority project was also canceled. Reports showed the power from this wind project would be significantly more expensive than traditional forms of energy at an outrageous $290 per MWh.
Similarly in Delaware, the Bluewater offshore proposal received a serious setback when a report by the state Public Services Commission showed the proposal resulted in a premium of nearly $120 per MWh. Calculations by the Public Services Commission showed the project could increase electric bills by as much as $55 per month.
Myth No. 2: Cape Wind would lock in cheap rates. While Cape Wind has been touting the financial benefits its project would hold for consumers by locking in rates over a long-term period, the federal report admits this is a doubtful possibility. The document reports, "Given the estimated cost of energy is $122/MWh, twice that of the current market and that this is after the full benefit of tax and RPS incentives, the prospects of entering a long-term purchase power contract would seem low."
Myth No. 3: Cape Wind won't pose threats to local stakeholders. Threats to public safety and the environment are very real. The FAA has issued a "presumed hazard" determination for the proposed Cape Wind project. Despite the federal report dismissing aviation threats as minor or negligible, the FAA has stated it will conduct additional studies to respond to safety concerns by the local airports.
Commercial fishermen, who rely on the proposed site for more than half their catch, would be restricted in their access to fish the fertile waters of Nantucket Sound. According to the Massachusetts Fishermen's Partnership, Cape Wind would displace commercial fishing from this area.
And the Coast Guard has requested a complete study on wind plant radar interference and the serious effects it would have on safe navigation in Nantucket Sound, a heavily used waterway characterized by frequent fog.
Myth No. 4: Cape Wind is a done deal. While many media outlets are incorrectly describing the federal report as a victory for the wind project, the report does not, in any way, endorse Cape Wind. It is a draft document that examines the potential impacts of Cape Wind, not an approval of this project.
Myth No. 5: You can't do anything to stop Cape Wind. Public comment, currently under way, is at the crux of the federal review process. Cape Wind is not a done deal and the voices of Cape Codders, Islanders, and all New Englanders have yet to be heard.
The upcoming public hearings on March 10-13 are the opportunity to do just that. I encourage anyone that doesn't want to pay dearly for this irresponsible project to attend one or more of these hearings and speak out before it really is too late — because once Nantucket Sound is gone, it's gone forever.
Audra Parker is on staff at the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound.
A Well Researched Opinion by Peter Kenney as posted on CapeCodToday.com 2/13/08
MMS DEIS DOA - Disaster on Arrival
The long-awaited Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the Cape Wind application to place 130 wind turbines in the waters of Nantucket Sound is finally out. ...Although the MMS DEIS seems to clear the way for Cape Wind to build its Nantucket Sound wind farm, CapeCodToday.com will be printing remarks made by experts in the wind-energy/finance fields that identify many serious flaws in the DEIS and in the methods and information used to paint a healthy picture of the Cape Wind project. MMS's own peer review raises serious questions about how MMS arrived at the conclusions their report contains.
February 13, 2008 by Peter Kenney in Cape Cod Today
The long-awaited Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the Cape Wind application to place 130 wind turbines in the waters of Nantucket Sound is finally out. Written by the United States Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service (MMS), it endorses the project.
The report totals 2,000 pages of text, maps, and charts/graphs. It contains five appendices where the real substance of the report is to be found. After wading through this document completely three times -- and in sections many more -- I can only say it is embarrassing that such a document is actually credited to a U.S. government agency.
Whether one supports or opposes the Cape Wind proposal this DEIS is a disaster. More important, for those who know little of the Cape Wind proposal, or of the history of the project's public comment and government review, the MMS does not present a compellingly complete analysis of the Cape Wind proposal.
Although the MMS DEIS seems to clear the way for Cape Wind to build its Nantucket Sound wind farm, CapeCodToday.com will be printing remarks made by experts in the wind-energy/finance fields that identify many serious flaws in the DEIS and in the methods and information used to paint a healthy picture of the Cape Wind project. MMS's own peer review raises serious questions about how MMS arrived at the conclusions their report contains.
When down is up
Let us start with Appendix F, which deals with the economics of the project. It is authored by Robert S. D. Mense of the Economics Division of the MMS and is dated May 25, 2007. (The report was released in January of 2008.)
Mense begins by telling how he developed a Microsoft cash-flow spreadsheet to accomplish his economic analysis. In layman's terms, Appendix F is intended to be a thorough cost/benefit analysis. It should be noted that the project's proponent, Jim Gordon of Boston, said early and often in his presentations in support of the wind farm that one of the main reasons for supporting it was the fact that it would save money for electric consumers in New England.
His original claim was that Cape Wind would save $25 million across New England, or twelve cents per month per household. As the permit review process wore on, Gordon's costs predictably rose until now we see a very different forecast. When it became clear two or three years ago that Cape Wind's cost escalation had cancelled out its production savings, the new Cape Wind position became the "downward pressure" the wind farm would exert on regional and local energy prices.
Page one of Appendix F in the MMS report says in its fourth paragraph: "Economic performance was measured in terms of cost of energy..." This is a devastating statement in light of the fact that, on page 17 of Appendix F, Mense writes that Cape Wind electricity will cost 12.2 cents per kilowatt hour (KWH) but that the average price for a KWH of electricity from the New England grid for January of 2007 was 5.87 cents. In other words, Cape Wind's electricity will cost more than twice what it claims to be able to compete with. In order to read this cost data one must go to the last full page of text in Appendix F.
The simple fact is that, even according to MMS, Cape Wind's electricity will raise New England electric rates.
What happens when your own experts say you are wrong?
By Peter Kenney
Jim Gordon, head of Cape Wind associates, wants to erect 130 wind turbines on Horseshoe Shoals in Nantucket Sound. He tells us that these 440-foot tall industrial power plants will be good for all of us and that the project is economically viable as well as environmentally beneficial. However, the recently released federal report touted by Cape Wind as proving its contentions, takes serious issue with the economics of the project as presented by Cape Wind. The two objections are that Gordon's financing projections are both unrealistic and not fully supported by hard facts and that his projected costs far exceed his projected income.
The expert’s view
Appendix F of the Minerals Management Service (MMS) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the Cape Wind application could keep a few people busy for some time wrestling with its mass of information. BCR has been grappling with this mass one-on-one. Most interesting to us were the comments made by two experts MMS hired to conduct a peer review of the draft before it was made public.
The complete text of two peer review reports is included in Appendix F. BCR is presenting here an overview of the several dozen pages of Appendix F. This section of the MMS DEIS is densely packed with information and analysis; it is definitely served “straight up.” So, this BCR (part three) will look at how the peer review conducted by Lessly Goudarzi, CEO of OnLocation, Inc./Energy Systems Consulting (Herndon, Virginia) views the MMS DEIS.
An overall impression of the Goudarzi review is that Cape Wind has not provided sufficient information to MMS, has probably gilded the lily with aggressively optimistic projections of costs and profits and that MMS has not done as thorough a review as it could have and should have.
…has deficiencies and should be revisited
The last paragraph on page one of the report summary says, "As discussed in more detail in the conclusions to this review, the evaluation by MMS using the model and its assumptions has deficiencies and should be revisited. At a minimum, after fuller disclosure of the underlying data sources and a treatment of the relative risks associated with each site are recommended."
… purposely avoids observing this obstacle
Goudarzi states that Cape Wind's estimated production cost will be double the current market paid for electricity and, "...this is after the full benefit of tax and RPS incentives..." This, the review states, makes the likelihood of Gordon getting long-term power contracts "low." Throughout the economic evaluation of the project, though, MMS and its experts point out the fact that Gordon needs to have long-term contracts to sell his electricity in order to find lenders and investors, let alone to cover his costs. Then comes the coup de grace: "The analysis apparently purposely avoids observing this obstacle." In other words, the numbers and methods do not work. This is clear to any sensible person. But the MMS has avoided dealing with this issue in the correct way. In fact, they simply ignore it.
Other tidbits from this review:
1. "References to the Energy Information Administration's Annual Outlook (AEO) are confusing." (p.3)
2. "First, the math is confusing. How do you arrive at a weighted average cost of capital that is lower than either of the component costs (i.e., 5.24% compared to 7.0% and 10.5%)? (p.3)
3. "Again, the target values appear on the low end for this type of project." (p. 4 speaking of Gordon's debt projections)
4. "Similarly, there is no consideration for the potential impact of a severe storm on the operations of the period over a 15 year debt repayment period. These types of stress tests are standard in any risk assessment of the project and would be expected of any lending institution with a risk management program. To not discuss these exposures and the potential differences across the sites leaves the assessment incomplete at best." (pp 4 - 5)
5. "The level of risks associated with this project at those investment levels should not be overlooked." (p. 5)
It’s just not clear
On page 6 Goudarzi asks, "Are the conclusions reached logical and supported by the evidence and analysis provided?" The answer given in this peer review is chilling. "It is not clear what the conclusion of the analysis is supposed to be." This is not a good sign for the MMS. In fact, it calls into question the validity of their entire report, of the very notion that anyone knows enough about the issues involved in the Cape Wind project even to think about granting approval for it. If one reduces the tens of thousands of pages of review and application documents and the past seven years of public comment and government review to a simple statement about this project, here is what we might say:
Jim Gordon says he can build and operate a 130-unit wind farm on Nantucket Shoals that will generate a reliable supply of clean energy using no fossil fuels and will save everyone in New England money and will pay his costs and yield a profit.
To prove this he has submitted reams of information to the MMS including assertions by an unnamed lender. Gordon's debt-to-equity ratio seems too risky to outside observers and his costs are projected to exceed his income, but he sticks to his claims of profitability. One of the two experts hired by MMS to evaluate the economics of Gordon's proposal and the quality of work MMS itself put into its evaluation closes a seven-page peer review with this comment:
"Support for the selection of the financial assumptions appears to rely extensively on an unnamed investment bank. If this bank were to provide an irrevocable set of terms consistent with these assumptions, then perhaps this is adequate. Absent that, a greater investigation into the financing of these kinds of projects would seem a key improvement to the analysis."
Appendix F gets an F
This very expensive term paper appears to get a failing grade from people paid to evaluate it. Since Jim Gordon has assured one and all that the Cape Wind project is economically sound, and since leading experts in such matters say differently, why should anyone even consider allowing this project to go forward? While Gordon's preferred location is in Nantucket Sound, his plan appears very unsound. This first of two peer reviews says, in a diplomatic way, that the MMS report is full of holes, unanswered questions and poor methodology. In part four, BCR will look at yet another critical review of the MMS report.
CLICK ON THE PHOTOS BELOW TO SEE THE FUTURE DESTRUCTION OF YOUR FAVORITE BEACH OR CAPE COD VISTA
Image:
WINDSTOP HAS WARNED ABOUT THE DANGER OF CAPE WIND'S RADAR INTERFERENCE FOR 4 YEARS
Cliff Carroll, founder of windstop.org, argues for county authority because of the risk of an oil spill at the proposed wind farm's transformer station.Cape Cod Times/Ron Schloerb
WEST YARMOUTH — The ball is in the court of the Cape Cod Commission. But what's in play is still up for debate in the minds of many who attended last night's public hearing on Cape Wind Associates' proposal to build 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound.
Speakers on opposing sides of the project tried to draw a clear line in their arguments at Mattacheese Middle School.
"What is within the jurisdiction of the commission here? A routine piece of infrastructure," said Seth Kaplan, clean energy and climate change program director with the Conservation Law Foundation.
The commission is reviewing Cape Wind as a so-called development of regional impact. The commission review is required for any project that files an environmental impact report with the state. While a commission staff report released Tuesday focused on transmission lines in state waters and on land, the commission voted in May to extend its jurisdiction to include potential impacts on the Cape from wind farm activity in federal waters.
Last night, dozens of speakers, many from clean energy and environmental organizations, agreed with Kaplan and called for the commission to swiftly approve the project's transmission lines.
"The world is watching you, Cape Cod Commission," said Fred Schlicher of the Massachusetts Climate Action Network.
Many speakers made the case for Cape Wind as a tool to help fight global warming and disputed claims by Cape Wind opponents who said the construction of the 440-foot high turbines would harm the environment of Nantucket Sound.
"The only way you're going to know what a wind farm is like is to see one," said William Griswold of Centerville, who invited members of the commission subcommittee reviewing the project to join him on a trip to Denmark to visit an offshore wind farm.
Mark Rodgers, spokesman for Cape Wind, said he was gratified to see so much support for the project.
"These are the most studied and analyzed electric cables ever proposed in the commonwealth of Massachusetts," he said, adding that despite ample information already available on the project, the company would continue to work with the commission on its regional impact review.
Rodgers declined to speculate whether Cape Wind would sue if the commission denied the project.
Opponents of the project said the regional planning and regulatory agency's jurisdiction over the project should extend into the federal waters, where the turbines would actually be built. Federal authorities have jurisdiction in waters three miles or more off a U.S. coastline.
In particular, wind farm foes said the Cape Cod Commission should be able to consider the possibility of an oil spill at the power facility's transformer station. "Looking at Cape Wind's own spill data, you will see that landfall is in Barnstable County," said Cliff Carroll, a founder of windstop.org., an anti-Cape Wind Web site.
An attorney for the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, Patrick Butler, said the Cape Cod Commission clearly extended its jurisdiction beyond the state boundaries in May. "That is the legitimate reading of your purpose and powers," he said, adding that a report from commission staff did not touch enough on the overall benefits and detriments of the wind farm project.
On Monday, the Cape Cod Commission is scheduled to hear extended public comment during a hearing in Barnstable. Requests to file extended comments were due by 10 a.m. today. The regional agency has until Oct. 7 to make a determination on the Cape Wind project.
The project has already been approved by state environmental officials and the state's energy facility siting board. A draft environmental impact statement from the Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service is due out by the end of this month.
The commission previously butted heads with the siting board in a separate proposed commercial development when it denied a route for a KeySpan gas pipeline proposed through Yarmouth, Dennis and Harwich. The siting board overruled the commission's denial, and the pipeline is scheduled to be installed this fall.
Patrick Cassidy can be reached at pcassidy@capecodonline.com.
ONCE AGAIN THE BRITISH MOD and CAA PUT OUR FAA TO SHAME ON THE VERY DANGEROUS WIND FARM RADAR ISSUE
Royal Air Force Joins Battle Against Wind Turbines
Sep 17 2007
by Dave Black, The Journal
VITAL low-flying training for RAF fighter crews in the region will be jeopardised if plans for three wind farms in Northumberland are given the go-ahead, it was claimed last night.
The Ministry of Defence has formally objected to the three separate bids, which involve the erection of almost 60 giant turbines at Green Rigg Fell on the North Tyne, the Ray Estate near Kirkwhelpington and at nearby Steadings.
MoD chiefs say the wind farms would have an “unacceptable impact” on flying operations controlled by the radar surveillance system at RAF Spadeadam on the Northumberland/Cumbria border.
The base is the UK’s only electronic warfare tactics range and is used to train RAF aircrews to evade radar-guided missiles and survive in hostile environments by using low-flying manoeuvres.
The MoD says it “strongly objects” to the three proposed wind farms as they will jeopardise the vital training facility which RAF Spadeadam provides.
It has voiced its opposition in an outline statement submitted to a public inquiry to be held early next year, which will determine all three bids by Amec Project Investments (Ray Estate), the Banks Group (Steadings) and Wind Prospect Developments (Green Rigg Fell).
Last night it was also revealed that air safety fears have led to objections from Newcastle Airport and air traffic control and management company NATS.
Along with the MoD, they say the 125m-high turbines will create “clutter” on radar screens and potentially conceal the presence of real aircraft.
Last night a pressure group opposing the scale and impact of the three developments said the MoD’s intervention meant either the RAF training at Spadeadam had to stop or the turbines could not be built, as there could be no compromise on air safety.
Today, a pre-inquiry meeting will be held in Hexham to pave the way for the full public inquiry into the three applications.
Newcastle Airport’s outline statement says each of the schemes is “highly likely” to interfere with its radar system.
“Newcastle Airport considers that all three proposals will have an unacceptable impact, both individually and cumulatively, on the safe and appropriate radar coverage at the airport,” it adds.
Last night Carol Brodie of Great Bavington, who chairs CREDIT (Campaign for Responsible Energy Development in Tynedale), said: “Local people have consistently raised the issue of military low flying in close proximity to wind turbines.
“Anyone who spends any time in this area knows that military aircraft fly through the proposed wind farm sites at low level almost every day, often several times a day and sometimes after dark.
“Common sense should have told the wind farm developers that we cannot have aircraft flying at 100ft in constrained airspace at very high speeds, having to avoid 400ft wind turbines in their path.
“The situation is further exacerbated by the adverse effects which wind turbines have on radar performance. Either the flying needs to stop or the turbines don’t get built. There can be no compromise with safety of aircrews, air passengers and the people on the ground.
“Despite all the assertions of the developers to the contrary, it is self-evident that these initial statements from the MOD, NATS and Newcastle Airport to the public inquiry show that the aviation issues are far from being resolved.”
None of the applicants could be contacted for comment yesterday.
Peter Bennet of Bellingham, from the Friends of the Wanneys protest group, added: “Local people are very concerned about the safety angle in all this because the RAF test flights are extremely low. Building these wind farms is going to leave a very narrow corridor for them to operate in and the risk of serious accidents must be high.”
by Simone Kaiser and Michael Fröhlingsdorf It came without warning. A sudden gust of wind ripped the tip off of the rotor blade with a loud bang. The heavy, 10-meter (32 foot) fragment spun through the air, and crashed into a field some 200 meters away. The wind turbine, which is 100 meters (328 feet) tall, broke apart in early November 2006 in the region of Oldenburg in northern Germany—and the consequences of the event are only now becoming apparent. Startled by the accident, the local building authority ordered the examination of six other wind turbines of the same model. The results, which finally came in this summer, alarmed District Administrator Frank Eger. He immediately alerted the state government of Lower Saxony, writing that he had shut down four turbines due to safety concerns. It was already the second incident in his district, he wrote, adding that turbines of this type could pose a threat across the country. The expert evaluation had discovered possible manufacturing defects and irregularities. Mishaps, Breakdowns and Accidents After the industry's recent boom years, wind power providers and experts are now concerned. The facilities may not be as reliable and durable as producers claim. Indeed, with thousands of mishaps, breakdowns and accidents having been reported in recent years, the difficulties seem to be mounting. Gearboxes hiding inside the casings perched on top of the towering masts have short shelf lives, often crapping out before even five years is up. In some cases, fractures form along the rotors, or even in the foundation, after only limited operation. Short circuits or overheated propellers have been known to cause fires. All this despite manufacturers' promises that the turbines would last at least 20 years. Gearboxes have already had to be replaced "in large numbers," the German Insurance Association is now complaining. "In addition to generators and gearboxes, rotor blades also often display defects," a report on the technical shortcomings of wind turbines claims. The insurance companies are complaining of problems ranging from those caused by improper storage to dangerous cracks and fractures. The frail turbines coming off the assembly lines at some manufacturers threaten to damage an industry that for years has been hailed as a wild success. As recently as the end of July, the German WindEnergy Association (BWE) crowed that business had once again hit record levels. The wind power industry expanded by a solid 40 percent in 2006, according to the BWE, and it now provides work for 74,000 people. Germany, moreover, is the global leader when it comes to wind power: More than 19,000 windmills now dot the countryside—more than in any other country. Green power has become a point of pride in Germany in recent years, and Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel would now like to construct vast new wind farms along the country's North Sea and Baltic Sea coasts. No Time for Testing Generous government subsidies have transformed wind power into a billion-euro industry within just a few years. Because energy providers have to purchase wind power at set prices, everyone, it seems, wants in. But it is precisely the industry's prodigious success that is leading to its technological shortcomings. "Many companies have sold an endless number of units," complains engineer Manfred Perkun, until recently a claims adjuster for R+V Insurance. "It hardly leaves any time for testing prototypes." Wind power expert Martin Stöckl knows the problems all too well. The Bavarian travels some 80,000 kilometers (49,710 miles) across Germany every year, but he is only rarely able to help the wind farmers. It is not just the rotors that, due to enormous worldwide demand, take forever to deliver, but simple replacement parts are likewise nowhere to be found. "You often have to wait 18 months for a new rotor mount, which means the turbine stands still for that long," says Stöckl. "Sales Top, Service Flop" is the headline on a recent cover story which appeared in the industry journal Erneuerbare Energien. The story reports the disastrous results of a questionnaire passed out to members of the German WindEnergy Association asking them to rank manufacturers. Only Enercon, based in Germany, managed a ranking of "good." The company produces wind turbines without gearboxes, eliminating one of the weakest links in the chain. Even among insurers, who raced into the new market in the 1990s, wind power is now considered a risky sector. Industry giant Allianz was faced with around a thousand damage claims in 2006 al
