WINDSTOP.ORG - 2/26/2009 Town of Barnstable files a lawsuit against Massachusetts over Cape Wind Nantucket Sound Wind Farm permiiting issues - 2/13/2009 FAA issues Determination of "PRESUMED HAZARD" to Cape Wind Nantucket Sound Wind Farm
After 5 years of strong objections by the Barnstable, Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard Airports, the FAA today issued a Presumed Hazard Determination on the 44 story , 25 square mile wind farm proposed in the middle of the flight routes of the 400,000 flights a year that traverse Nantucket Sound. ... Please read below, this is another reason to stop Cape Wind.
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
State of Massachusetts sued by Town of Barnstable and Tax Payers Group over politically influenced Cape Wind farm determination
2/26/2009
HYANNIS, MASS.: The Town of Barnstable and the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound and a number of Massachusetts residents filed a lawsuit against the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) in Massachusetts State Court challenging CZM's Jan. 23 determination that Cape Wind's proposal to industrialize 25 square miles of Nantucket Sound is "consistent with CZM enforceable program policies."
In issuing Cape Wind a consistency determination, CZM appears to be in direct violation of its mission "to balance the impacts of human activity with the protection of coastal and marine resources," according to the advocacy group.
"In its decision on Cape Wind's impacts, CZM has clearly violated the law and abandoned its own mission to protect our coastal environment," said Glenn G. Wattley, Alliance President and CEO.
The alliance claims that both CZM and Cape Wind are violating the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Act intentions to prevent or minimize damage to the environment. Construction and maintenance of Cape Wind's 130 wind turbines and 10-story electrical service platform would alter the environment of Nantucket Sound, adversely affecting fishing, marine navigation, and aviation safety; posing the risk of oil spills; endangering birds and marine mammals; and impairing the setting of numerous Tribal and historic sites, according to Alliance officials.
In the group's view, CZM issued the determination prematurely and failed to comply with the number of legal requirements for regional and historic review.
First, the alliance claims that CZM did not refer Cape Wind's certifications to the Cape Cod Commission as required by the Cape Cod Commission Act.
The group also said the Massachusetts Historical Commission has not completed its review of the project's impacts upon numerous historic properties, noting that the federal Minerals Management Service has acknowledged that Cape Wind would have adverse impacts on at least 29 Tribal and historic sites. According to the alliance, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), and the United South and Eastern Tribes strongly oppose the project and believe the structures would desecrate ancient burial grounds, as well as hinder cultural and religious ceremonies.
The alliance claims that the Chapter 91 permit has not been issued for the Cape Wind project as it is under appeal by the group and the Town of Barnstable and also that the Cape Wind project is not consistent with CZM's own policies. In prior comments on Cape Wind, the alliance notes that CZM itself has stated, "The project will have both direct and indirect impacts to natural resources and uses within the Massachusetts coastal zone and the adjacent waters."
The alliance cites specific examples of inconsistencies with CZM's policies, including inconsistency with Energy Policy #1 because there are more appropriate sites for the Cape Wind project within the coastal zone; inconsistency with Protected Areas Policy #3, which states that developments near designated or registered historic districts or sites must respect the preservation intent and mitigate potential adverse impacts; inconsistency with Water Quality Policies #1 and #2. The project poses the risk of a major oil spill and may release significant amounts of hazardous oil into the marine environment; inconsistency with Ports Policy #1, which seeks to ensure that dredging and disposal of dredged material minimize adverse effects on water quality. Cape Wind's dredging would have major impacts on Horseshoe Shoal.
The alliance earlier this month cited a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) finding as another reason for the project to be blocked.
In reference to the estimated 400,000 flights per year over Nantucket Sound, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today formally issued a Notice of Presumed Hazard for the Cape Wind project. The alliance notes that the FAA finding states that wind turbines can cause radar interference and reduce the probability of detecting small aircraft and that based on a recent aeronautical study of the proposed project's turbines, the FAA found that each of the 130 structures "exceed obstruction standards and/or would have an adverse physical or electromagnetic effect upon navigable airspace or air navigation facilities." Cape Cod Times Cape Wind battle is far from over!
By AUDRA PARKER February 16,2009
The devil is in the details of the recent federal review of Cape Wind — a 25-square-mile offshore wind plant proposed in the heart of Nantucket Sound.
The media have obscured the significant dangers of this irresponsibly sited project with careless generalizations and speculation. Headlines like "Key hurdles cleared" and "Cape Wind ready to rev up" would have us think that the construction barges and pile drivers are on their way. Suggestions that Cape Wind's approval for a federal lease is just two weeks away are far from the truth. Cape Wind is nowhere near a done deal — and the fight is far from over.
Regulations for permitting renewable energy projects in federal waters, which were due nearly three years ago, are still not done. The Federal Aviation Administration is now studying the radar interference Cape Wind could pose to our air traffic and has issued a termination notice warning of "potential for physical and/or electromagnetic interference to the radar systems used by the FAA."
Legal consultations with historical groups and local tribes are not complete. The Department of Interior's inspector general is investigating potential wrongdoing in the federal review of Cape Wind. The Cape Cod Commission has denied Cape Wind a critical permit, and several other state permits are being challenged in the courts.
And these are just a fraction of the hurdles. As long as Cape Wind continues to target a heavily conflicted site, it will face serious community, political, legal and financing challenges, each one putting the project even further from reality.
Statements from the federal review of Cape Wind show the damage this project would do if it continues to be buoyed by politicians concerned with being green at any cost — a burden we, the residents of the Cape and Islands, would bear.
For example, on impacts to navigation, the report unacceptably places the onus on boat operators who would "need to take more caution when navigating in the area of the WTGs (wind turbine generators) to avoid the WTGs and other boaters, and to take into account the moderate impact the WTGs can have on marine radar." Even the Coast Guard, which has also acknowledged radar interference, has told commercial fishermen "they can fish someplace else."
The report claims impacts to our water quality would be negligible — "with the exception of spills." While an oil spill may be unlikely, the report confirms that it would have a greater than 90 percent chance of hitting our beaches: "oil is most likely to travel toward the south shore of Cape Cod and the eastern shore of Martha's Vineyard, while it has a large probability of impacting the shoreline somewhere."
The report attempts to minimize the potential destruction of our beaches, the heart and soul of our economy, stating merely, "there would be a temporary reduction in beach recreation and tourism because of the unpleasant conditions that would be present on the beaches."
For birds, the prognosis is beyond "unpleasant": "If the feathers become coated with oil, birds lose their ability to repel water and to insulate and in some instances, lose the ability to fly. Potential impacts include mortality from heat loss, starvation, or drowning."
The report acknowledges adverse impacts to tribal and historic sites and calls visual impacts moderate. In daytime, "Nantucket Sound beaches along the southern shore of Cape Cod in the towns of Falmouth, Mashpee, Barnstable, Yarmouth, Dennis, Harwich and Chatham would have open views of the visible structures." At night, 58 turbines would have red lights flashing in unison 20 times per minute — all visible from land.
Better sites are emerging daily that would allow the ferries and airports to protect the safety of their passengers, fishermen to protect their livelihoods, and tribes to protect their cultural practices.
The report itself offers the only real solution, with this example: "Mitigation on ceremonial practices and traditional cultural properties is ineffective, and the only avoidance of such impacts is relocation of the project."
Relocation is the only responsible next step. The federal agency charged with reviewing Cape Wind should deny this poorly sited project and work with local stakeholders to find a better location that doesn't needlessly risk our safety, our economy, and our home.
Audra Parker of Osterville is chief operating officer and executive director of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON HOW YOU CAN HELP STOP THE INDUSTRIALIZATION OF NANTUCKET SOUND
The inspector general for the U.S. Department of the Interior is investigating how the Minerals Management Service has handled its review of the proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm.
The investigation comes as the federal agency is about to release its final environmental report on the energy project, which sources say could be within days.
About a half dozen people who were interviewed by an investigator with the inspector general's office over the past four months confirmed that they had been asked questions about the MMS review of Cape Wind. A person close to the investigation also confirmed the ongoing inquiry.
A spokesman for Inspector General Earl Devaney declined to comment on the investigation.
In the past year, Devaney has released several critical reports on MMS, including a series of scathing reports in September that found gift giving, drug use and sex involving MMS officials and oil company employees.
MMS — a division of the Interior Department — is the lead federal agency to review the wind farm that Cape Wind Associates LLC wants to build in the center of the Sound. The agency is expected to release a final environmental impact statement on the project soon, although the report has been delayed while the Coast Guard finalizes its recommendation on the potential effects of wind turbines on marine radar. That recommendation should be forwarded to MMS today, a Coast Guard spokeswoman said yesterday.
MMS officials could not comment on what the inspector general's office might or might not be doing, MMS spokesman Nicholas Pardi said. "The MMS does stand by their environmental work and believes they do have the best information that is available," he said.
Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rodgers said he had heard nothing from the inspector general's office or from MMS about any investigation.
Rumors about the investigation have been floating for months among proponents and opponents of Cape Wind. Proponents questioned yesterday whether confirmation of the inspector general's investigation was tied to the imminent release of the final environmental report, which must come out before Jan. 20 if the outgoing presidential administration is to lay any claim to its approval. An official "record of decision" on the project will not be released until at least 30 days later.
A draft report MMS released last year was largely favorable toward the wind farm.
The inspector general's investigation started with a phone call, said Peter Kenney, a South Yarmouth resident and Cape Wind opponent.
"I called Devaney's office," Kenney said, adding he asked the inspector general to look into the process surrounding Cape Wind's review.
The chief investigator with the inspector general's Boston field office traveled to Cape Cod to interview Kenney along with other opponents of Cape Wind, Kenney said.
"At the time, Devaney was already rampaging around MMS," Kenney said. "All of MMS was under a glass."
Outcomes of inspector general investigations fall into several categories. An agency may be exonerated of any wrong doing; agency officials may face criminal, civil or administrative charges; or the inspector general's office could forward recommendations for further action to the agency being investigated.
The Interior Department inspector general's investigator wanted to know about anything that had to do with malfeasance or waste at MMS in relation to Cape Wind's review, Kenney said.
U.S. Rep. William Delahunt's office was also contacted by the inspector general's office, Delahunt's chief of staff, Mark Forest, said yesterday. The investigator asked for several letters the congressman had written about the project, including those touching on a review of the impact on historic properties and concerns that other agencies were being ignored by MMS, Forest said.
None of the individuals or organizations contacted by the Times for this story who are in favor of Cape Wind reported being interviewed by the investigator.
The insinuation that MMS has gone easy on Cape Wind is "odd," said Susan Reid, an attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation, a group that supports Cape Wind.
"It strikes me as kind of incredible if anyone is asserting that Cape Wind has gotten any kind of sweet deal from MMS," Reid said, citing the federal agency's lengthy review of the project.
Glenn Wattley, president and CEO of the anti-Cape Wind group Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, said he was interviewed as an individual for the inspection general's investigation.
Wattley spoke to the investigator about the use of GE 3.6 megawatt turbines for the proposed wind farm and the economics of the project, he said.
Wattley and the Alliance have argued the GE turbines are not available and Cape Wind needs to specify what type of turbine the company will use in the Sound. They have also argued that the project is not financially viable, a point Wattley says he reiterated to the inspector general's investigator.
Wattley and Kenney also pointed the investigator in the direction of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service environmental opinion that appeared to fly in the face of earlier critical comments by an official with the agency who was subsequently reassigned to other duties.
Vernon Lang, assistant supervisor for Fish and Wildlife's New England Field Office, had called for more studies on the impact of wind turbines on birds before he was removed from work on the Cape Wind review.
In an April 21 comment letter on the draft environmental report released by MMS last year, Fish and Wildlife officials criticized MMS for "repeatedly and inappropriately" drawing conclusions about environmental impacts without enough site-specific information.
Despite the calls for more studies, an environmental opinion Fish and Wildlife released in November found that the project would not endanger two bird species protected by the Endangered Species Act.
Several other individuals who were reportedly interviewed by the inspector general investigator, including Lang and a representative of the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe, declined to comment for this report.
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
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.
A major report on the proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm is expected today, but at least one key finding will not be included and another has just been received by the lead agency reviewing the project.
The U.S. Minerals Management Service — a division of the Department of the Interior — is expected to release its final environmental impact statement on the wind farm today, according to a notice posted on the Web site of the Office of the Federal Register. A draft version of the report issued by MMS almost exactly a year ago was largely favorable toward the project.
Since that time, MMS has accepted more than 40,000 public comments on the draft document.
A study of the project by the Federal Aviation Administration that has not been completed will not be part of the report. A recommendation from the Coast Guard on the effects of the turbines on marine radar was handed over to MMS only yesterday.
The FAA has decided to go back to the drawing board in its review of how the 130 turbines Cape Wind Associates LLC proposes for the Sound would affect aviation radar, FAA spokesman Jim Peters said yesterday.
The FAA visited Cape Cod and the Islands in June as part of a comprehensive study of the project, Peters said.
During the visit FAA officials identified potential electromagnetic and physical interference between the wind turbines and FAA radar, he said.
That information was not available during previous studies and prompted the FAA to issue a new "notice of presumed hazard," Peters said.
new study planned
Such a notice is standard for any project that exceeds certain FAA standards, such as height, and is not a final determination, Peters said. Because of the new findings the old study was stopped and another study will now be started, he said.
If the FAA finds that the project is a hazard to aviation it would work with Cape Wind to try and mitigate the effects of the turbines, Peters said.
Any comments on the original study will be included as part of the new work, he said.
The FAA report is not part of the National Environmental Policy Act process that requires the MMS environmental review of Cape Wind, according to MMS spokesman Nicholas Pardi.
If MMS grants a lease for Cape Wind it would be conditional on the developers having all necessary permits and meeting all other requirements by federal and state agencies, including the FAA, Pardi wrote in an e-mail to the Times.
In a prepared statement e-mailed to the Times, Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rodgers wrote that Cape Wind had "worked closely with the FAA on air navigation issues since 2002."
recommendation delayed
"Since that time, the FAA has twice issued Cape Wind a 'Determination of No Hazard.' Recently, the FAA has raised an issue concerning air radar systems," Rodgers wrote. "Cape Wind will continue to work closely with the FAA and we are confident that we will successfully resolve this issue."
The Coast Guard recommendation that was turned over to MMS yesterday will be a part of the MMS report, a Coast Guard spokeswoman said. Local Coast Guard officials said last month that a study of the turbines' potential effect on marine radar showed that the project was "doable" but a recommendation based on the study was delayed at the request of U.S. Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn.
Oberstar is the chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Oberstar's committee has oversight of the Coast Guard.
Cape Wind hoped the final report from MMS would come out today, Rodgers said yesterday.
"It's been a long eight-year road to get to this point," Rodgers said. "We look forward to seeing the report."
Cape Wind's proponents have argued that the project has been delayed unnecessarily and that its construction would provide much needed clean, renewable energy in Massachusetts.
Opponents contend the project's review has been rushed and that it would harm the environment and aesthetic beauty of the Sound.
legal challenges
Cape Wind's president, Jim Gordon, first proposed the idea of a wind farm in the Sound in 2001.
The company says the wind farm would provide the equivalent of 75 percent of the energy needs for Cape Cod and the Islands.
The project is the subject of several lawsuits, and the release of the MMS final environmental report is expected to spur even more litigation.
A formal "record of decision" — the final signing off on the project by the Interior Department — can be released only 30 days after the final environmental impact statement is issued.
The project continues to face challenges on other fronts as well.
Just this week it was confirmed that the inspector general for the Department of Interior had initiated an investigation into the handling of the Cape Wind review by MMS.
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.
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!!
Image:
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.
THE NEW MMS DEIS IS MISLEADING, INCOMPLETE AND DECEPTIVE
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.
WATCH THIS WIND TURBINE SELF DESTRUCT! IS THIS THE FUTURE OF OUR FISHING GROUNDS?
object width="425" height="355">
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
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 alone. Jan Pohl, who works for Allianz in Munich, has calculated that on average "an operator has to expect damage to his facility every four years, not including malfunctions and uninsured breakdowns." Many insurance companies have learned their lessons and are now writing maintenance requirements—requiring wind farmers to replace vulnerable components such as gearboxes every five years—directly into their contracts. But a gearbox replacement can cost up to 10 percent of the original construction price tag, enough to cut deep into anticipated profits. Indeed, many investors may be in for a nasty surprise. "Between 3,000 and 4,000 older facilities are currently due for new insurance policies," says Holger Martsfeld, head of technical insurance at Germany's leading wind turbine insurer Gothaer. "We know that many of these facilities have flaws." Flaws And Dangers And the technical hitches are not without their dangers. For example: • In December of last year, fragments of a broken rotor blade landed on a road shortly before rush hour traffic near the city of Trier • Two wind turbines caught fire near Osnabrück and in the Havelland region in January. The firefighters could only watch: Their ladders were not tall enough to reach the burning casings • The same month, a 70-meter (230-foot) tall wind turbine folded in half in Schleswig-Holstein—right next to a highway • The rotor blades of a wind turbine in Brandenburg ripped off at a height of 100 meters (328 feet). Fragments of the rotors stuck into a grain field near a road. At the Allianz Technology Center (AZT) in Munich, the bits and pieces from wind turbine meltdowns are closely examined. "The force that comes to bear on the rotors is much greater than originally expected," says AZT evaluator Erwin Bauer. Wind speed is simply not consistent enough, he points out. "There are gusts and direction changes all the time," he says. But instead of working to create more efficient technology, many manufacturers have simply elected to build even larger rotor blades, Bauer adds. "Large machines may have great capacity, but the strains they are subject to are even harder to control," he says. Even the technically basic concrete foundations are suffering from those strains. Vibrations and load changes cause fractures, water seeps into the cracks, and the rebar begins to rust. Repairs are difficult. "You can't look inside concrete," says Marc Gutermann, a professor for experimental statics in Bremen. "It's no use just closing the cracks from above." The engineering expert suspects construction errors are to blame. "The facilities keep getting bigger," he says, "but the diameter of the masts has to remain the same because otherwise they would be too big to transport on the roadways." Not Sufficiently Resilient Still the wind power business is focusing on replacing smaller facilities with ever larger ones. With all the best sites already taken, boosting size is one of the few ways left to boost output. On land at least. So far, there are no offshore wind parks in German waters, a situation that Minister Gabriel hopes to change. He wants offshore wind farms to produce a total of 25,000 megawatts by 2030. Perhaps by then, the lessons learned on land will ward off disaster at sea. Many constructors of such offshore facilities in other countries have run into difficulties. Danish company and world market leader Vestas, for example, had to remove the turbines from an entire wind park along Denmark's western coast in 2004 because the turbines were not sufficiently resilient to withstand the local sea and weather conditions. Similar problems were encountered off the British coast in 2005. German wind turbine giant Enercon, for its part, considers the risks associated with offshore wind power generation too great, says Enercon spokesman Andreas Düser says. While the growth potential is tempting, he says, the company does not want to lose its good standing on the high seas. Provided by Spiegel Online—Read the latest from Europe's largest newsmagazine
NOW WE KNOW WHY CAPE WIND REFUSES TO MAKE PUBLIC THE TRUE COST TO OUR RATE PAYERS CAPE COD TIMES HIGH COSTS SINK NEW YORK WIND FARM
A 40-turbine wind farm envisioned in Long Island Sound is dead in the water after yesterday's release of an unfavorable economic analysis of the proposal.
"This project just was getting too expensive," Long Island Power Authority Chairman Kevin Law said yesterday of his decision to pull the plug on the turbines based on the report.
Private energy developer Cape Wind Associates is proposing to build 130 wind turbines on 25 square miles in Nantucket Sound. The turbines would rise 440 feet off the surface of the water and produce about 420 megawatts of energy. The project is estimated to cost more than $1 billion but how it will affect consumer electricity rates is unknown.
Long Island Power Authority contracted FPL Energy to build and operate a 40 turbine wind farm on 8 square miles about 4 miles off of Jones Beach in Long Island Sound. The turbines were projected to produce about 144 megawatts of energy. The project was estimated to cost between $300 million and $500 million, according to initial estimates, but a recent report put the cost at $811 million. The project was scuttled Wednesday after the cost to ratepayers was determined to be too high.
Opponents of Cape Wind Associates' proposal to site 130 turbines in Nantucket Sound said the death of the New York project lends credence to calls for a similar economic study here.
"What are Cape Wind's costs?" said Audra Parker, spokeswoman for the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. "We don't know any of that information."
Currently, the cost of building the Cape Wind project is expected to top $1 billion, Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rodgers said. Cape Wind has not provided a detailed economic analysis of the project and did not have plans to do so, he said. "It's a work in progress."
The failure of the Long Island project — which would have provided 144 megawatts of energy from turbines situated about 4 miles off Jones Beach — and a larger project in Texas are an indication that greater transparency could lead to similar conclusions surrounding Cape Wind, Parker said.
The projects are not "analogous," Rodgers countered.
In 2003, Cape Wind examined the prospect of building the Long Island project. In a letter to the Long Island Power Authority, Cape Wind President Jim Gordon outlined why the company was not interested.
"We do not believe that the public or the regulators would accept the project if it is priced far above other conventional or renewable sources of power," Gordon wrote in the letter.
The Pace Global Energy Services economic study released yesterday estimated the Long Island project's cost at $811 million, about $500 million more than initial estimates four years ago.
Over the first 20 years of the turbines' operation, the cost to consumers on Long Island would have been $2.50 per month more than traditional energy sources for a typical residential customer who uses 775 kilowatt hours per month, according to calculations by the Long Island Power Authority.
Residential electricity customers on Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard pay between $143 and $145 for 775 kilowatt hours per month, according to figures provided by NStar and the Cape Light Compact.
The reasons for Cape Wind's decision that the New York project was not economically feasible were based on the location of the project in water where wave heights and water depths far exceeded those in Nantucket Sound, Rodgers said. The differences meant more steel would have been required to strengthen and lengthen the Long Island Sound turbines' towers, he said.
If Cape Wind can successfully negotiate the regulatory process, at least one industry official believes there will be no shortage of financial backers for the Nantucket Sound turbines.
Cape Wind will not need to look far for interested investors, said James Walker, vice chairman of the board for enXco, a company that develops and constructs wind energy projects across the U.S.
"Once they get through all those hurdles, I have little doubt that there will be financing available," Walker said.
Others aren't so optimistic.
The continuing rise in the price of steel and other construction materials could make wind projects such as Cape Wind cost prohibitive, said Martin Cantor, director of the Long Island Economic and Social Policy Institute at Dowling College.
"I don't see people doing this," Cantor said of large-scale offshore wind generation.
In April, Mark Greer, a professor of economics at Dowling College, wrote a report suggesting that one way to reduce costs would be to have a local government body build and operate the Long Island project.
And alternatives to offshore wind farms such as land-based wind turbines should be thoroughly explored, Cantor said.
"If you have your druthers, you reconfigure the power plant to be cleaner," he said.
"Everybody rushes for green power."
But a different "green power" seems destined to drive the offshore wind projects.
"I would hope that going forward, whether by LIPA or other public or private developers, they do a cost-benefit analysis earlier on," Law said.
Patrick Cassidy can be reached at pcassidy@capecodonline.com.
THE UK's FAA CONFIRMS WIND FARMS ARE MAJOR AVIATION PROBLEM, CALLS FOR GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS WHILE OUR FAA IGNORES THE DANGERS OF CAPE WIND.
CAA highlights wind turbine perils
By David Learmount in London
Wind turbines, especially many grouped in a wind farm, can wipe out the effectiveness of primary and secondary radar surveillance systems and radio navigation aids, says the UK Civil Aviation Authority. In a report, the agency calls on the government to require those responsible for siting wind turbines to consider aviation safety as well as other issues.
“The development of wind turbines has the potential to cause a variety of effects on aviation,” says the CAA report. “These range from physical safeguarding [turbines as tall obstacles], generation of unwanted returns on primary radar, affecting the performance and propagation of secondary surveillance radar [SSR], navigation aids and communication facilities, through to consideration of [air] turbulence. It should be noted that wind turbines do not in themselves cause electromagnetic interference.”
There are multiple ways in which wind turbines can interfere with radar surveillance, especially if they are in groups, in radar line of sight, and located within 28km (15nm) or less of the radar head. According to the CAA the types of interference include:
Swamping the receivers: this refers to primary radar, and occurs when “the bulk of the wind turbine structure may reflect sufficient energy to swamp any reflected energy of aircraft in the same area”.
Defeating moving target processing: “If the rotating wind turbine blades are within or close to the radar line of sight, then the Doppler shift in reflected energy from the blades may defeat any moving target processing and display the blades as targets or tracks that could be mistaken for aircraft.”
Presenting an obstruction: “If the wind turbines are within radar line of sight and aircraft are required to be detected at longer range behind the wind turbines then the following two effects may occur: obstruction – aircraft detection is lost in the shadow of the wind turbines; and diffraction – partial obscuring of the aircraft radar reflections by the wind turbines causes azimuth errors at the radar [so] the aircraft can be displayed in a skewed position, or appears to jitter in position as it passes behind multiple blades.”
SSR reflections: “SSR energy may be reflected off the structures in both the uplink and downlink directions. This can result in aircraft, which are in a different direction to the way the radar is looking, replying through the reflector and tricking the radar into outputting a false target in the direction where the radar is pointing – in other words, at the obstruction.”
Navigation aid signal effects: depending on the relative position of the wind farm, it “can affect the propagation of the radiated signal from instrument landing systems. As a result, the integrity and performance of these systems can be unacceptably degraded.”
The CAA says it is researching all these effects more closely and will promulgate further advice.
JUST RELEASED DEFENSE DEPARTMENT REPORT CONFIRMS POTENTIAL DANGERS TO NATIONAL SECURITY AND AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS PRESENTED BY WIND FARM RADAR INTERFERENCE.
READ THE FULL DOD REPORT BELOW ON LEFT AND PLEASE NOTE THE DOD EXCERPT BELOW ON THE RIGHT WHICH POINTS OUT 3 MAJOR ERRORS MADE IN THE PAST ABOUT THE TRUE POTENTIAL EFFECTS TO PAVE PAWS BY THE CAPE WIND PROJECT
CLICK ON IMAGE TO READ FULL REPORT
CLICK IMAGE TO READ THE 3 MAJOR ERRORS MADE ON THE PREVIOUS PAVE PAWS REPORT
Peter Shelley , director of the Massachusetts Advocacy Center for the Conservation Law Foundation, a Boston environmental group, said, "While the ruling is narrow, it is probably as close to a death blow as this developer could receive for this project at this point in time." Blasting Gordon for proposing it in "an already environmentally overburdened community," Shelley said, "We hope that this developer wakes up and abandons this project. "
THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING
Cape Wind firm 'unlikely' to win OK for oil-fueled plant
Mass. environment chief cites wetlands rules in Chelsea bid
By Peter J. Howe, Globe Staff | May 19, 2007
Cape Wind developer Jim Gordon's plan for an oil-fueled power plant in Chelsea "appears unlikely" to be able to get state approval, Massachusetts' top environmental regulator said late yesterday.
The statement came just days after another electricity-generation plan for Massachusetts, the 20-tower Hoosac Wind project on the Florida-Monroe border in the Berkshire hills, was dealt a potentially fatal setback by a state board that ruled its access road would violate wetlands laws.
While Hoosac Wind has attracted both support and opposition on environmental grounds, the Chelsea Peak Energy proposal has faced intense opposition from community and "green" groups.
Many contend putting an oil-burning power plant in a pollution- and poverty-afflicted city would be an environmental injustice.
Gordon's Energy Management Inc. proposes a 250-megawatt power plant -- enough to power 180,000 homes -- burning low-sulfur fuel oil up to 1,600 hours a year to generate electricity during periods of peak demand such as hot summer afternoons.
Governor Deval L. Patrick has been a leading supporter of Gordon's proposal to erect 130 wind-generation turbines in Nantucket Sound, and Gordon in turn was a big campaign backer of Patrick.
But yesterday, Patrick's administration cut Gordon no slack on the project proposed for the banks of the Chelsea Creek next to a Gulf Oil tank farm.
State Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Ian A. Bowles , in a 15-page ruling on the draft environmental impact report, said the plan appears not to qualify as a water-dependent project that state environmental laws normally allow on heavily regulated waterfront land.
"At its proposed location, the project appears unlikely to be permitted," Bowles wrote. "If the proponent chooses to continue through the [regulatory] process, it does so at its own risk."
Bowles suggested the plant might be feasible on an Everett industrial site, but that location has also drawn local opposition.
Dennis J. Duffy , vice president of government and regulatory affairs for Energy Management, said he could not comment on the complex ruling last evening.
Energy Management argues that the plant would improve, not worsen, air pollution because it would offset the need for dirtier-burning oil and coal power plants in Everett and Salem to run at the equivalent of a fast idle in summer months to cover electricity demand spikes.
Chelsea leaders and environmentalists hailed Bowles' ruling. "This is a huge victory for the community," Chelsea City Council President Roseann Giovanni said. "The community will celebrate this, but we realize the war is not over."
Peter Shelley , director of the Massachusetts Advocacy Center for the Conservation Law Foundation, a Boston environmental group, said, "While the ruling is narrow, it is probably as close to a death blow as this developer could receive for this project at this point in time." Blasting Gordon for proposing it in "an already environmentally overburdened community," Shelley said, "We hope that this developer wakes up and abandons this project. "
On the Hoosac Wind project, Bowles spokesman Robert Keough said , state Department of Environmental Protection officials are studying Wednesday's 80-page wetlands-based rejection from the Division of Administrative Law Appeals, but haven't decided yet whether to challenge the division in court.
By KEVIN DENNEHY and DAVID SCHOETZ
STAFF WRITERS
Defense officials say large, industrial wind turbines such as those proposed for Nantucket Sound can interfere with military radar systems if built in the radar's line of sight, according to a report released yesterday.
Based on the report's conclusions, the officials have asked for more analysis about whether the proposed 130-turbine Cape Wind project would interfere with an Air Force radar station in Sagamore.
The 62-page report, prepared for Congress by the Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, specifically concludes that previous analysis of the effects on the PAVE PAWS radar station were ''overly simplified and technically flawed.''
The report calls for a more comprehensive study ''on an expedited basis.''
That conclusion stands in stark contrast to earlier correspondence from federal officials that found the Nantucket Sound project would pose no hazard.
In fact, whenever questions about radar interference were brought up before, Cape Wind officials would cite a 2003 letter from the Federal Aviation Administration that affirmed ''no hazard'' to aviation, and a 2004 Air Force letter that said the project would ''pose no threat to the operation of the PAVE PAWS radar.''
The new Department of Defense findings echo similar a 2005 British report, which concluded that turbine blades can produce ''hole(s) in detection'' for military radar systems.
''It validates the claims we've been making: that this is a very serious problem,'' said Cliff Carroll, a wind farm opponent and co-founder of windstop.org. ''The real risks of this project are really starting to show themselves.''
For the Cape Wind developers, the radar question is just the latest in a series of thorny issues to emerge since the proposal was unveiled five years ago.
Among other concerns, Cape Wind proponents have had to answer to charges that the project - which would be the nation's first offshore wind farm - would threaten birds, regional fishing and boat navigation.
The proposal remains the subject of an intense federal review by the Department of Interior.
Earlier this year, U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, the Cape's congressman and a Cape Wind critic, asked federal officials to investigate how the 417-foot turbines would affect military and civilian radar. Of particular concern for Delahunt were potential effects at the PAVE PAWS station, which is located on the northwest corner of Camp Edwards and is one of just two fixed-site early warning radar systems in the nation.
Some have asked whether the turbines would create ''clutter'' or an ''undesired reflected signal return,'' according to the Defense report, when the radar signal returns to the Cape station. One of the findings of the Defense study is large turbine blades can ''appear to a radar as a 'moving' target of significant size if they are within the radar line of sight.''
While the report says there are potential technologies to minimize the effects on radar, it adds that ''only a few'' have been proven.
Carroll, who has been pushing the issue of radar interference for more than two years, yesterday called the new report ''a huge deal.''
Cape Wind officials, however, took a cautious approach responding to the Defense report. ''We need to take some time to study this report,'' said Mark Rodgers, a Cape Wind spokesman. ''I'm probably going to leave it there for today.''
Barbara Hill, executive director of Clean Power Now, a local organization that supports the wind farm proposal, said additional Defense analysis is important, as long as the process is open to the public and done in a timely fashion.
''This blip on the radar screen is just that,'' Hill said, referring to many hurdles the renewable energy proposal has overcome during the review process. ''We will learn from this and we will get this built.''
Kevin Dennehy can be reached at kdennehy@capecodonline.com. David Schoetz can be reached at dschoetz@capecodonline.com.
“In light of the significant historic properties affected by the Cape Wind Project, including at least two National Historic Landmarks, MMS’ compliance with Sections 106 and 110(f) of the NHPA and the requirements of NEPA are critical. The National Trust does support the need for and advancement of renewable energy technology. However, we caution against a solution to this problem that would irreparably alter, damage, or destroy aspects of our national heritage without serious consideration of alternatives and/or modifications.
"MMS should make every effort to understand the implications of the Cape Wind Project, and if necessary deny the applicant’s 30-year lease request.”
NEW MMS OIL SPILL REPORT SHOWS CAPE COD AND THE ISLANDS WORST NIGHTMARE!!!
A CAPE WINDS 40,000 GALLON TRANSFORMER OIL SPILL!!
Foes say Cape Wind hid oil report
By DAVID SCHOETZ
STAFF WRITER
Cliff Carroll can debate Cape Wind with the best of them.
But with all the huffing and puffing surrounding the wind farm controversy, Carroll also plays the role of tactician.
By his own account, the work he's done with the British Ministry of Defence on the effect wind turbines might have on military radar systems helped prompt a closer look by federal officials here into the issue. Their final report could be released in the next few months, according to a U.S. Department of Defense spokesman.
Another concern that Carroll, a local mortgage broker and founder of Windstop.org, has pursued aggressively is the impact an oil spill at the wind farm's transformer station would have on the coastlines of the Cape and Islands.
A report prepared by Cape Wind consultants made public this week by the Minerals Management Service concluded that if a major spill did occur at the project's electrical service platform - which would hold up to 40,000 gallons of lubricating oil - there's a greater than 90 percent chance the oil would reach the shoreline.
Based on oil flow and tide studies of Nantucket Sound, consultants from Applied Science Associates in Narragansett, R.I. found that the south shore of the Cape and eastern shore of Martha's Vineyard would likely face the biggest danger and that in extreme conditions, the oil could reach land in less than five hours.
''This is an unacceptable risk,'' said Carroll, who also questioned why it took so long for Cape Wind to release the study and the developer's unwillingness to specify the type of oil that would be used in the transformer station.
The electricity generated by the 130-turbine wind farm would pass through the station, which would stand 100 feet above Nantucket Sound, before two cables transmitted the power to a West Yarmouth landfall.
''This is the mother lode of this industrial complex,'' said Ernie Corrigan, a spokesman for the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, a local group working to kill the renewable energy proposal. ''It is the beating heart of the industrial complex that's going to sit in the middle of Nantucket Sound.''
In 2004, Carroll lobbied the nine ocean-facing towns on Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket to send letters asking the federal government to request more information from Cape Wind about oil spill trajectories, as well as an oil spill response plan.
The 32-page report has been filed by Cape Wind with Minerals Management Services, a division of the Department of the Interior now overseeing the multi-agency Cape Wind review.
Mark Rodgers, a Cape Wind spokesman, said last week the possibility of an oil spill is a legitimate concern.
Still, he cautioned blowing the report's findings out of proportion.
''It's one of many factors that needs to be considered,'' Rodgers said. ''But I'm concerned that opponents are trying to use this to scare the public.''
The transformer station, Rodgers said, would include a triple containment system and the oil, which is used as a coolant, would be of low toxicity, somewhere between a vegetable oil and a petroleum-based, highly refined oil.
Asked why he couldn't be more specific, Rodgers said Cape Wind developer Jim Gordon has not hired the subcontractor yet that would oversee the transformer station.
As for keeping the report from the public, Rodgers scoffed. ''The public has access to more information and technical analysis for the Cape Wind project than they have had for any electric generating plant ever built in New England,'' he said.
What's more, he added, one of the few options for local electricity generation is the fossil-fuel-burning Mirant Canal power plant in Sandwich, which requires regular shipments of oil.
And, as in the case of the 2003 Buzzards Bay disaster that spilled nearly 100,000 gallons of No. 6 fuel oil into local waters, such shipments present a risk.
Rodgers' defense did little to appease Carroll. ''Any oil is a hazardous material once it enters into the aquatic environment,'' he said. ''They're picking and choosing what they want to show the public.''
The Minerals Management Service expects to issue a draft environmental report for Cape Wind this winter, which the public can comment on, before releasing a final report and decision in 2007.
David Schoetz can be reached at dschoetz@capecodonline.com.
THESE OIL SPILL CHARTS SHOW THAT THE 40,000 GALLON OIL SLICK COULD HIT OUR SHORELINES IN AS LITTLE AS 4.8 HOURS
PLEASE READ THE CAPE WIND TRANSFORMER OIL SPILL TRAJECTORY REPORT JUST OBTAINED FROM THE MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE
NOW WE KNOW WHY CAPE WIND HAS HELD THIS REPORT FROM THE PUBLIC FOR ALMOST 1 YEAR!!
CAPE CODS WORST NIGHTMARE. CAPE WIND WILL BE PUTTING A 40,000 GALLON TRANSFORMER OIL FILLED 10 STORY SUBSTATION IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR FISHING GROUNDS< JUST OFF OUR BEACHES!!
DANGER!!!!!!!!
CAPE WINDS NEW OIL SPILL OUTRAGE!
An alarming report recently obtained from the Minerals Management Service states that:
In the event of a spill, Cape Wind's report shows a greater than 90% chance that our Cape and Islands shoreline will be effected by the 10 Story, 40,000 gallons of transformer oil!
The report further states that the oil slick could reach our Cape and Islands shorelines in as little as 4.8 hours!
Cape Wind has had this report since October of 2005, and has withheld it from the public despite demands from the 9 coastal towns of Nantucket Sound!
Please read and download the full Cape Wind Oil Spill Trajectory Report to the right.
It is time to get serious and shut down this threat to our Cape and Islands. Please write your local papers and legislators TODAY!
PLEASE SHOW YOUR OPPOSITION TO THE INDUSTRIAL WIND FARM BY VOTING NO ON THE BOSTON BUSINESS JOURNALS ONLINE POLL BELOW
The Boston Business Journal is conducting its weekly online survey on the issue of Cape Wind. (Link below).
Please encourage all within your email network to go online and respond! Deadline is early next week – poll results to be announced in the newspaper on Friday, September 1st.
MASSACHUSETTS FISHERMANS PARTNERSHIP TELL CAPE WIND TO STOP MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS
MASSACHUSETTS FISHERMEN'S PARTNERSHIP
For Immediate Release Contact: David Bergeron August 23, 2006 (978) 282-4847
Coalition of 18 Massachusetts commercial fishing organizations calls on Cape Wind to "stop making false claims" about their offshore wind project’s impact on fishing
Mass. Fishermen’s Partnership says "Cape Wind puts fishermen at risk"
GLOUCESTER - The Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership (MFP) today released a letter publicly calling on Cape Wind CEO Jim Gordon to "stop making false claims to the public" to the effect that the world’s largest proposed offshore wind energy plant won’t have any detrimental impact on fishing in Nantucket Sound and may even prove beneficial to fishermen.
Cape Wind has consistently ignored concerns of commercial fishermen and continues to claim that its support from the International Seafarers Union – not a fishing organization – was tantamount to support from commercial fishermen.
MFP was so concerned about the misleading and false statements made by Cape Wind that it began today a series of newspaper advertisements to correct the false impressions created by Cape Wind during the five year development of the project.
In a letter sent to Gordon yesterday, MFP Executive Director David Bergeron and President Edward Barrett said that Cape Wind has ignored a 2004 Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership report describing fishing activity in Nantucket Sound. Information collected by researchers from MIT about where fishermen fish and generate their earnings, identified 123 commercial vessels as fishing in Nantucket Sound. Interviewees estimated that of these vessels commercial mobile gear fishing vessels earn 50 to 60 percent of their annual income fishing on portions of Horseshoe Shoal, the proposed area of the wind plant. In addition, commercial fixed gear is fished over the entire area of the shoal.
"Navigation of mobile fishing gear between the 130 wind towers would be hazardous or impossible," Bergeron and Barrett state in their letter to Gordon. "According to the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, 1,162,529 pounds of squid and fish were harvested in 2000 by mobile gear fishing vessels working in Nantucket Sound. According to the fishermen who fish in the Sound, a major portion of their catch is from the Horseshoe Shoal area. The slope of the Shoal area that would be covered by the wind plant is the most important area for fishing. Loss of access to this area would displace fishing to other areas in and near Nantucket Sound. This raises the potential for crowding, gear conflicts and habitat impacts elsewhere in the Sound, thereby affecting additional fishermen and a broader range of fishing communities."
MFP Calls on Cape Wind to stop making false claims on fishing impacts/Page 2
The letter goes on to state: "These are waters that we fish and where we have historically gotten a large percentage of our catch. We are hereby requesting that you stop making false claims to the public."
"We are united on this issue – large-scale offshore development in areas like those selected by Cape Wind will hurt the fisheries and fishing, now and in the future. Cape Wind puts fishermen at risk," the letter states.
Member Organizations that form the Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership are:
Boston Harbor Lobstermen’s Cooperative
Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association
Commercial Anglers’ Association
General Category Tuna Association
Gloucester Fishermen's Wives Association
Gloucester Fishermen's Assn.
Marshfield Commercial Fishermen's Association
Massachusetts Commercial Fishermen's Association
Massachusetts Inshore Commercial Ground Fishermen's Association
Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Assn.
New Bedford Seafood Coalition
New England Fish Exchange
Northeast Seafood Coalition
North Shore Community Tuna Association
Pigeon Cove Fishermen’s Co-Op
Plymouth Lobstermen's Association
Provincetown Fishermen’s Assn.
So. Shore Lobstermen’s Association
NOW WE KNOW WHY CAPE WIND HAS REFUSED TO MAKE THE WIND DATA INFO AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC
LONG ISLAND BUSINESS NEWS
Serious blow for proposed turbine park!!
By Jean Paul Vellotti
Friday, August 25, 2006
When the wind blows, the turbines will rock – when it doesn’t, there’s trouble.
At least, for those who would put a wind farm off Long Island’s South Shore. During the hottest days of this year, as energy consumption records fell across the Island, there was nary a breeze – and not nearly enough wind to power the turbines of the Long Island Power Authority’s proposed Offshore Wind Park to their 140-megawatt capacity, according to Suffolk County Leg. Wayne Horsley, D-Babylon.
Horsely said he has wind data collected during this summer’s heat wave and plans to release it as part of a comprehensive report later this month. However, existing reports from the Suffolk County Budget Review Office and data from the National Weather Service and proposed wind park builder FPL Energy already support Horsley’s claims. (Those reports are based on wind levels in 2005 and earlier.)
According to the Budget Review Office, the proposed park’s maximum power output at any given August moment would be between 10.3 and 37.5 megawatts – a far cry from LIPA’s estimates of 140 megawatts. Those numbers are based on a historical trend showing wind patterns over Long Island’s South Shore during August – a time when additional power generation is needed most – are weak.
Dan Zaweski, LIPA’s assistant vice president of energy efficiency and distributed generation, acknowledges the findings – to a point. Where the turbines’ blades would actually be situated, he said, there’s enough wind.
“Generally, on hot days, there’s not a lot of wind blowing,” Zaweski said. “But using modeling at hub height and three miles out, there is some wind blowing.”
The technology planned for the 40-turbine site, which would be located approximately 3.5 miles from Jones Beach, allows some power to be produced even if the turbines aren’t spinning to total potential. Zaweski estimated that even at winds of 8 mph, power would be generated, but he didn’t give any exact numbers.
Zaweski has requested wind data for the days during the 2006 heat wave, but has not yet received the information – and therefore could not calculate exactly how much power could be generated.
By using wind-speed figures during previous peak power consumption days, however, LIPA and AWS Scientific Inc. – an Albany-based company that studies wind patterns – were able to create an estimate. Zaweski said those findings show the wind park would produce approximately one-third of the park’s capacity, between 40 and 50 megawatts.
“That’s still a sizeable load,” he said.
AWS Scientific stated in a 2002 report it prepared for LIPA and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority that wind farms need wind speeds of 18 mph to be economically viable. According to that study – which measured wind data at a 213-foot hub height over a 15-year period – the proposed location of LIPA’s turbines would not meet the 18-mph requirement.
AWS Scientific also recommended that “for serious consideration,” offshore wind development must be moved further offshore, which means deeper waters.
That’s welcome news for Horsley, who cautions that before Long Island makes a commitment to any wind park project, every option needs to be explored.
“My concern with the LIPA project is that we are going to spend $400 million, which has to be paid by ratepayers, and then LIPA has to pay $40 million to build a power cable, plus $100 million in decommissioning costs which LIPA has to pick up,” Horsley said. “I think you could surely get more energy for $500 million through other projects.
“We should not run headlong into a project that can get better with second-generation technology,” the legislator added.
One alternative project has been proposed by Winergy Power LLC, which is pitching a three-turbine test facility off the Plum Island coast. If testing proves successful, Winergy has expressed interest in creating a privately funded 200-turbine project much farther out, at least 20 miles off Long Island’s South Shore.
But unlike the LIPA project, which would funnel all generated electricity to Long Island, sources say Winergy would sell the majority of power from its project to Con Edison.
According to data buoys 20 and 30 miles off the South Shore operated by the National Data Buoy Center, winds were also weak in that area during this summer’s heat wave. Those measurements, however, were made 15 feet above the water’s surface. The NWS said it did not have wind data at hub height.
IDENTICAL TO THE CAPE WIND SITE- FAA SAYS NO TO RADAR INTERFERENCE!!
Airport radar tilts with Fire Island windmills
FIRE ISLAND: Electric generation could interfere with airport system.
By MATT WHITE
Anchorage Daily News
Published: August 21, 2006
Last Modified: August 21, 2006 at 04:18 AM
Click to enlarge
A Chugach Electric idea to put giant, electricity-producing windmills on Fire Island is giving its neighbor, Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport, a case of bad vibes.
Radar experts recently found that electromagnetic waves from the proposed 33-windmill project would be so strong they would warp the signal of the airport's main air traffic control radar. On top of that, the sheer size of the windmills, whose blade tips could reach 400 feet in the air, would also physically block the signal of another key radar already on Fire Island.
Those conclusions come from radar engineers hired by the Federal Aviation Administration to examine what effects Chugach's proposed wind farm would have on the airport. The FAA runs the nation's air traffic systems, including radars and control towers at airports.
A Chugach Electric Association official said the company has already modified its concept so that the windmills won't block the Fire Island radar, a navigational beacon known in pilot-speak as a "VOR."
But electromagnetic problems remain between the wind project and the airport's primary air traffic control radar.
Anchorage-based Chugach is the state's largest power utility, with customers from Homer to Fairbanks. It has toyed with using wind power for years as a way to bring less-polluting, non-fuel-using electricity generation to the state's Railbelt region. It has studied costs, demand and the best locations for windmills.
About a thousand VOR radars are spread across North America as navigational beacons. Virtually all planes flying near Anchorage use the Fire Island VOR, from private Cessnas landing at Merrill Field to Elmendorf's fighters to airliners passing five miles overhead. VOR radars need clear lines of sight in all directions, down to a specific angle from the ground.
Phil Steyer, a Chugach manager closely involved with the project, said that to accommodate the VOR, "we've done some turbine reallocations, some went away and some added with height limitations."
Chugach is partners in the wind-power initiative with three other utilities: Anchorage's Municipal Light & Power, Homer Electric Association and Golden Valley Electric Association in Fairbanks.
The original concept was for 33 windmills on Fire Island generating up to 3 megawatts each, which in peak conditions could hit 100 megawatts of power, about a fifth of the energy Anchorage can demand. A 3-megawatt windmill stands 265 feet tall, with blades almost 150 feet long. But to fit around the VOR, Steyer said, the utility scaled down the idea to two dozen 1.5-megawatt windmills, cutting the project's possible output.
"That still leaves issues with the approach radar," Steyer said.
Air traffic controllers use an "approach" radar to guide planes arriving at and departing from the airport.
As a modern windmill spins in a breeze, its blades turn an electric turbine, which uses an electromagnetic field to create electricity. That field, if large enough, can radiate for miles and disrupt radio transmissions of all kinds.
According to the FAA's engineers, even Chugach's smaller windmills could produce electromagnetic fields that cause "false target presentations and permanent echoes on air traffic control radar displays."
In other words, controllers in the airport's control tower might see planes where there were none or be blind to real ones.
Officials with both the FAA and Chugach said they are continuing to work together on the problem, though it's unclear what, if anything, can be done. FAA spokesman Allan Kenitzer said the agency is "assessing methods of modifying the radar to avoid any adverse effects" to airport operations but would not be more specific. He also would not say whether Chugach's revised concept would alleviate concerns with the Fire Island VOR.
The idea of using Anchorage's natural wind tunnel, otherwise known as Turnagain Arm, to generate electricity is not new, nor is this the first time Chugach Electric's hopes for developing wind power have hit, well, turbulence.
"We have been looking at the potential for wind generation around Southcentral Alaska since at least 1998," said Steyer. "It's all dependent upon economics of the project. No decisions have been made whether to try and bring the process forward."
Chugach declared Fire Island a favorite spot for a wind farm in 2004, after several years of studying possible sites around the region.
A site near Whittier was deemed too windy and likely to damage the machines. One at Bird Point on the Seward Highway was too small. The Army declared military land near Arctic Valley off limits. And the wind at a site above Bear Valley was too icy.
And projects at any of those sites, officials said at the time, would have been scorned as eyesores.
But Fire Island has plenty of windy real estate owned by Cook Inlet Regional Inc., the Anchorage regional Native corporation, which signed on to the project. And three miles from the nearest scenic overlook, the site was less likely to draw aesthetic complaints.
On the downside, construction on the island would be more costly than on a mainland site, said Steyer, and power cables would need to run underwater to the mainland.
Daily News reporter Matt White can be reached at mwhite@adn.com or 257-4350.
Cape Wind and the Big Dig, #2-1193
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Clearly, the catastrophic failures, design flaws, a human casualty, and cost overruns, are all harbingers of the myriad of problems that we can anticipate if the Big Dig of Nantucket Sound, Cape Wind, is permitted
The parallels of the $15 billion dollar Central Artery Tunnel Project, a world's largest and first; and the experimental offshore industrial facility proposed by Cape Wind are impossible to ignore. The Boston Big Dig's recently reported negative impact on the Cape and islands' tourism industry portents the decimation of the same by the Big Dig of Nantucket Sound proposed by a private developer. Cape Wind has no experience in building an offshore wind tower, let alone an industrial scale wind facility.
The Big Dig of Boston has hurt the tourism industry of the Cape and islands. The Big Dig of Nantucket Sound would destroy the local tourism economy, and decimate the fishing industry.
As the Big Dig whistle blower, Christy Mihos, has said, "If you like the Big Dig, you'll love Cape Wind."
SENATOR STEVENS MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE U.S.C.G NOW HAS THE POWER TO DENY CAPE WIND PROJECT BASED ON THE NAVIGATIONAL HAZARDS IT COULD PRESENT, LIKE RADAR INTERFERENCE!
Stevens told fellow senators on June 22 that they
“must remain open to the possibility that the commandant may find that no amount of mitigation could be sufficient to eliminate the potential detrimental effects of the specific siting of this development.”
New face of the Cape Wind debate
By KEVIN DENNEHY
and DAVID SCHOETZ STAFF WRITERS
Just two months ago, some were ready to write the obituary for the proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm.
Federal lawmakers were poised to give Bay State Gov. Mitt Romney - a longtime project opponent - veto authority over Cape Wind Associates' offshore plan.
Then came the letters of protest, a string of stinging editorials in national newspapers and, most critically, opposition to the policy from key members of Congress across the country.
Yesterday, the shift in debate was complete, as House lawmakers approved unanimously a provision that instead gives strict authority over the Cape proposal - and no other - to the commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard.
Specifically, the Coast Guard commandant will decide whether the project would pose a navigational threat in Nantucket Sound.
For now, that determination would fall to Adm. Thad Allen, a Coast Guard veteran who took over the federal response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster and this spring was appointed the Coast Guard's top official.
Both sides of the Cape Wind debate say publicly that the Coast Guard's new role will help their cause.
Cape Wind supporters, having dodged what they called another back-room political effort to doom the project, hope putting the project's fate in Allen's hands will remove politics from the debate.
''Agencies have to follow standards without being arbitrary or capricious,'' said Matt Palmer, executive director of the Cape-based Clean Power Now. ''Politicians do not. They can be as arbitrary or capricious as they want.''
Coast Guard ''will be fair''
The siting of offshore renewable projects is new to the federal government. The Department of Interior is currently developing a national policy for renewable energy projects on the Outer Continental Shelf. And the Coast Guard, too, is crafting its own guidelines.
U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, the Cape's congressman and a project opponent, said the Coast Guard is the right agency to judge navigational threats.
''I have great confidence in the Coast Guard,'' Delahunt said yesterday. ''I just know they'll conduct a process that's thorough, that's exhaustive and that will be fair.''
The new policy on Cape Wind was inserted into an $8.7 billion Coast Guard reauthorization bill, which will now go to President George W. Bush. The president will have 10 days to sign the bill into law after receiving it.
Under the new provision, the Coast Guard has authority to judge whether the Nantucket Sound project - an ambitious plan that would put 130 417-foot turbines on Horseshoe Shoal - poses navigational threats. The Coast Guard would also be granted authority to require ''reasonable'' conditions to remove those threats.
Cape Wind opponents say that could include altering the location of turbines or the number of turbines.
Coast Guard officials must make those decisions not later than 60 days before the Department of Interior releases a new draft environmental impact statement on the Cape Wind proposal - something expected by the end of the year.
Lead official for Katrina
Allen assumed the role of commandant on May 25.
An Arizona native, he was designated the lead federal official for the Hurricane Katrina response after former FEMA director Michael Brown was removed from the job.
Allen also formerly served as chairman of the Department of Homeland Security's Joint Requirements Council.
In recent weeks, Allen has met with Romney and Delahunt to discuss regional issues, including Cape Wind.
''This is one of the things they talked about,'' Cmdr. Brendan McPherson, a Coast Guard spokesman, said of the recent meeting with Romney. ''It's something (Allen) is keeping an eye on.''
Until now, the Coast Guard has played only an advisory role in the Cape Wind review.
In February 2005, Capt. Mary Landry, head of the Coast Guard's Marine Safety Office in Providence, asked the Army Corps of Engineers - then the lead agency reviewing Cape Wind - to do additional analysis on potential navigational risks to commercial boat traffic.
Landry also asked that an environmental report address whether the turbines would interfere with marine radar, an issue the Department of Defense is now investigating.
Cape Wind confident
Mark Rodgers, a Cape Wind spokesman, said yesterday company officials are confident the Coast Guard review will be professional and fact-based. He also expressed hope that local Coast Guard staff familiar with Cape waters would help Allen reach his conclusions.
''Generally, (administrators) are all busy people who have a lot to do,'' he said. ''And they rely a lot on people on the ground who have the expertise.''
Angela McArdle, another Coast Guard spokeswoman, yesterday confirmed that local Coast Guard officials will play a role in the agency's deliberations. ''In decision-making, generally throughout the Coast Guard, we tend to empower local folks,'' McArdle said. ''Our role at headquarters is to provide the guidance and make sure they have the tools they need to apply their local knowledge.''
But even if the Coast Guard concludes the turbines pose no navigational risk, some wind farm opponents, including U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, concede that wouldn't erase all of their concerns. ''There are still some outstanding questions with respect to the project,'' Kennedy said last week.
Delahunt agreed. ''I have no doubt that whatever (the Coast Guard) requires will be subject to multiple interpretations.
''As I've said all along, this project is destined for litigation that will be interminable.''
Kevin Dennehy can be reached at kdennehy@capecodonline.com. David Schoetz can be reached at dschoetz@capecodonline.com.
(Published: June 28, 2006)
WINDSTOP HAS BEEN EXPOSING WINDFARM RADAR INTERFERENCE FOR 3 YEARS, NOW WASHINGTON IS CATCHING ON.
A New Blip on Wind Power's Radar Screen
By Cindy Skrzycki
Tuesday, June 20, 2006; D01
PITTSBURGH Wind power may be flying high, but the young industry fears its growth may be clipped if federal rulemakers and Congress continue to set up new regulatory hurdles.
At the industry's recent annual conference here, one of the topics under discussion was the federal government's intensified interest in checking the height of wind power turbines to make sure they don't interfere with military radar. Until now, the industry pretty much concentrated on fending off criticism about the danger the fast-moving turbine blades can present to bats and birds, as well as the turbines' noise and unsightliness.
But in January, Congress mandated a study of the effects of proposed wind turbines on military operations, including aircraft radar, triggering special scrutiny by the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Defense .
The perceived military problem is that the tall turbines might create false signals picked up by military radar.
As the process now works, Defense can weigh in, but after reviews are complete, the FAA makes the final decision.
Turbine developers say the inspections are holding up projects and putting them in financial peril. They say the delays may interfere with the president's goal of having wind power account for 20 percent of the nation's electrical generation by 2008.
FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the process is taking longer because growth in the industry has been exponential, with wind turbines in 30 states and only 12 FAA staffers to do the work.
In 2004, the FAA had 1,900 proposed turbine projects; this year, it has 5,000 so far. "And 360 just came in the door yesterday," Brown said. She said that the review process usually takes about a month and that 2,200 turbine proposals have been approved this year.
Horizon Wind Energy , a Houston firm owned by Goldman Sachs , has plans to put up a wind facility in Bloomington, Ill. In April, the company got a letter from the FAA saying the wind farm might pose problems. Michael Skelly , Horizon's chief development officer, said the company started working with the FAA immediately but never really found out what the military issues were. On May 25, the FAA approved the project.
The study requirement was added to the 2006 Defense Authorization Act and is widely viewed in the industry as a way to stall development of a wind farm on Nantucket Sound. Sens. John W. Warner (R-Va.) and Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) oppose that project, which the FAA has already approved.
"There is a Washington-based congressional interference on local siting decisions, and that's a very bad thing," Skelly said.
What really shook up the industry was a March 21 directive from the Defense Department and the Department of Homeland Security that said "any establishment of windmill farms within radar line of sight of the National Air Defense and Homeland Security Radars" would be contested.
Until then, the evaluation centered mostly on how tall structures -- radio towers, turbines -- would affect military air space and training routes as well as landings at commercial airports.
Lt. Col. William Crowe , chief of air space policy for the Air Force, said in an interview that the Defense/DHS Long Range Radar joint program office at Langley Air Force Base, which worries about aircraft entering the country illegally, has become concerned about whether the turbines create false signals or cause other interference in the radar's line of sight.
Crowe said the military wants to do an early evaluation of sites before the FAA review process even begins. "We want to get in early and tell them if it's in a certain area, it won't work," he said.
Laurie Jodziewicz , policy specialist for the American Wind Energy Association , the industry's trade group, said wind power has peacefully coexisted with radar for some time. She said that on occasion, the solution has been to move or lower towers.
Some military installations have operating turbines, including the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo, F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming and an Air Force base on Ascension Island.
The industry is anxious about any delay in construction because a federal tax credit to build wind farms expires at the end of 2007.
But Jodziewicz said developers who receive a "Notice of Presumed Hazard" from the FAA cannot get financing or go forward with construction.
The industry is particularly worried about 12 projects in Wisconsin, Illinois, and North and South Dakota where developers got such letters.
The FAA said the impression that projects, especially in the Midwest, will be permanently derailed is unwarranted.
John Calaway , chief executive of Superior Renewable Energy in Houston, got a "presumed hazard" letter three months ago concerning a project in South Dakota, but it was recently cleared by the FAA. He also had to move towers five miles down a ridge to get clearance from the Defense Department on a project in San Diego County in California.
Calaway said the experience taught him, and should send a signal to the industry, that the radar issue should be up on their screens.
"The FAA used to be the last thing we checked off. The lesson now is that this is not a guaranteed, rubber-stamped deal. We probably should have been paying more attention to radar."
THE U.S. WIND INDUSTRY IS NOW PAYING THE PRICE FOR THE RADAR ISSUE FORCED TO THE TABLE BY CAPE WINDS POORLY CHOSEN DANGEROUS SITE IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR 3 AIRPORTS AND 400,000 FLIGHTS A YEAR.
WINDSTOP FIRST RAISED THE UK RADAR ISSUES BACK IN 2003
READ THE FULL UK ARMS WARFARE WIND FARM RADAR REPORTS LISTED ABOVE
Modern windmills, like these near an old-fashioned windmill in Birds Landing, Calif., stand hundreds of feet tall.
By Alan Levin, USA TODAY
Worries that giant electricity-producing windmills may interfere with aviation radar have thrown several major wind-power projects into disarray and threaten to derail a rapidly growing source of domestic energy, industry advocates say.
In recent months, the Defense Department and the Federal Aviation Administration have blocked or slowed several projects in Wisconsin, Illinois and South Dakota. Their concern is that the windmill blades could confuse a radar or obscure its view of aircraft.
Congress passed a law in January requiring the Defense Department to study whether windmills interfere with radar. The military opposes any windmill project in the path of long-range air defense radars until that study is completed.
Laurie Jodziewicz, a spokeswoman for the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), says up to 15 projects are on hold after the FAA notified the industry group this year that they would create a "presumed hazard."
That designation makes it difficult to obtain financing and insurance for the projects, she says.
"It's very uncertain and very unclear why these things are happening now when it never happened before," Jodziewicz says.
"It's just another example of the situation where in the United States the renewable energy industry is always swimming upstream," says Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, an advocacy group. "There are all these unforeseen obstacles that come along and slow things down."
The FAA and the military say they are not trying to halt construction of windmill projects but must ensure that the generator farms don't compromise aviation safety or national defense.
The main impetus for putting the projects on hold has come from the military. FAA radars can easily distinguish aircraft from obstructions such as windmills, but defense radars designed to spot airborne intruders are more sensitive to interference.
"Until the potential effects can be quantified and possible mitigation techniques developed, it is prudent to temporarily postpone wind turbine construction in areas where the ability of these long-range radars that protect our country might be compromised," Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez says.
Wind power generates slightly less than 1% of electricity in this country, but its share is growing rapidly, the AWEA says. Last year, wind was the nation's second-largest source of new power generation, after natural gas.
Lainez and FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown say their agencies are working with wind farm developers to smooth the application process. Brown cites the approval May 25 of a large project in Bloomington, Ill., that had been blocked.
Brown says the FAA has struggled to keep up with the influx of wind farm applicants. The aviation agency, which must rule on each windmill, received 4,343 applications last year, more than double the 1,982 it reviewed in 2004, Brown says. The agency expects as many as 10,000 this year.
The latest wind turbines stand several hundred feet high. Individual blades are more than 100 feet long. In some cases, the windmills could appear to be aircraft on radar screens or could create images that make it harder to spot planes.
Methods to minimize interference are available. Moving a proposed windmill, using computers to create smarter radars that ignore windmills, and using "stealth" technology to make windmills invisible to radar could solve the problem, Vickerman says.
The controversy over windmills in the upper Midwest follows a fight over a huge proposed project off Cape Cod in Massachusetts. Worried about possible radar problems at that project, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., inserted language into this year's Defense Authorization Act that required the study.
Warner didn't intend to block projects before the study was completed, says John Ullyot, a spokesman for the senator.
Radar jitters prompt FAA to halt new wind farms
COX NEWS SERVICE
WASHINGTON - The wind energy industry, amid record-breaking growth, has hit a snag because of concern the giant turbines may interfere with radar facilities used by the military.
Wind power
U.S. wind generating capacity
1981: 10 megawatts
1985: 1,039
1990: 1,525
2000: 2,578
2005: 9,149
At least a dozen new wind energy operations under construction in the Midwest received letters from the Federal Aviation Administration last week directing sponsors to stop work pending a study of the effect the 300-foot-high turbines might have on radar.
Wind turbines at the end of last year were producing nearly 10,000 megawatts of electric power - enough to power 2 million homes - and the industry has said it is on track to add another 3,000 megawatts this year.
Earlier this year, President Bush said he believed wind turbines would eventually provide up to 20 percent of the country's energy needs.
But the FAA letters, which are linked to a congressionally mandated Defense Department study, left 12 projects becalmed and provoked protest letters from senators representing Illinois, Wisconsin and North Dakota.
The FAA has declined to reveal which developments received the ''notices of presumed hazard,'' but Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said in a news release that 12 wind energy developers had been told they had to ''cease operations immediately'' on wind farm construction.
The American Wind Energy Association said that although construction of the ''vast majority'' of wind farms was proceeding on schedule, ''a total of at least 500 megawatts due for completion this year and next is now under a de facto moratorium.''
The number could grow if the issue is not resolved quickly, the industry association said.
The Defense Department's study of the national security implications of the burgeoning wind farm industry was mandated by a provision tucked into a military spending bill passed by Congress this year.
The language gave the Defense Department authority to halt construction of any wind farm lying in the line of sight of defense or homeland security radars until the study is completed.
''There is evidently some concern that somebody in an aircraft could hide behind those turbines,'' said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a nonprofit organization that analyzes a wide array of defense issues.
He noted that the FAA radar has a dual use. The military Joint Surveillance System uses the same equipment as civilian air traffic controllers to track planes.
But wind turbines ''have to get FAA approval before they're built, just like microwave towers and tall buildings,'' Pike noted. ''It's hard to imagine how a big problem could arise suddenly and unexpectedly.''
Assistant energy secretary Alexander Karsner yesterday said the Energy Department is working to resolve the issue and suggested the delay would be brief.
(Published: June 6, 2006)
Congressman Bill Delahunt: Playing by the Rules
Playing by the Rules
By Congressman Bill Delahunt
Recently, some have suggested that Congress is trying to change the “rules of the game” for the developers of the wind farm project proposed for Nantucket Sound. Some have even gone so far as to imply that the “rules” are being unfairly manipulated to sidetrack the Cape Wind proposal after years of regulatory review —and millions of dollars expended by the developer.
Nothing could be further from truth.
Fact: when Jim Gordon and Cape Wind filed their permit application withthe Army Corps of Engineers, there were NO rules.
Jim Gordon filed his application in 2001. At the time, he possessed no clear legal right to build a wind farm in federal waters. In fact, Congress only authorized the development of such facilities in federal waters in August of last year. He was taking a gamble — one that promised huge profits — if he could justify his project under an 1899 law designed to regulate docks and moorings.
The emergence of the Cape Wind project and others prompted the Congress last year to authorize creation of a policy for offshore wind farms. The “rules” are now being written by the Minerals Management Service and will most likely call for wind farm sites to be chosen based on a consultation process with states. The“rules” will no doubt require future wind projects to avoid marine sanctuaries, participate in a transparent competitive bidding process -- and ensure that the rights to use federal waters produce revenue for the taxpayer.
It is Cape Wind that wants to play by its own special rules.
Fact: tucked away in the Energy bill that was signed into law last year, was a cleverly written, innocuous, provision that will exempt Cape Wind from many of the “rules” now being written to regulate emerging wind farms —specifically, federal competitive bidding requirements.
This language was so artfully crafted that I needed to enlist the non-partisan Congressional Research Service to decode it. Cape Wind’s special exemption was never disclosed or openly discussed. It was written in such a way that it escaped the notice of both the US Congress and the public. That is the real outrage.
Fact: Cape Wind has morphed into a no-bid deal, engineered in secret, and financed with $1 billion in taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies.
The same Energy Bill that gave Cape Wind a no-bid deal, also provides a number of important financial incentives for renewable energy, including expanded taxcredits.
Jim Gordon and his investors could potentially reap annual savings of $27 millionin federal tax credits and as much as $82 million in state incentives.
The bottom line is that investors, not fixed- or low-income families, are the ones who will benefit the most from the power generated by Cape Wind.
Fact: the so-called “exhaustive process” that Cape Wind claims it has participated in has been extensively criticized by the US Oceans Commission,the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Interior.
Cape Wind’s draft Environmental Impact Statement emerged from this so-called“process” having earned EPA’s lowest grade. The Interior Department’s criticisms are over 50 pages long. Now the FAA and Defense Department are raising redflags about national security and air traffic safety.
With respect to the substance of the Coast Guard provisions, Congress has already established a precedent by giving our Governors and the Coast Guard the authority to veto and regulate offshore LNG projects. Nobody is suggesting that was a mistake.
Let’s not forget that thirty years ago it was the people of the Cape and Islands who convinced the Massachusetts Legislature to designate all of Nantucket Sound an ocean sanctuary. It was the Commonwealth that designated much of this area off-limits to development, and nominated the Sound for national sanctuary protection.
In the end, I believe the rules are important. It’s the reason why we insist that houses aren’t built on un-zoned land and in compliance with building codes. Rules ensure that everyone is treated fairly and consistently, and are safeguards designed to make sure that the process is respected. Until the day comes when everyone agrees to play by the same rules, this fight to protect Nantucket Sound will go on.
William Delahunt is the US Representative for the 10th Congressional District.
Wind farm makes no economic sense
By WILLIAM KOCH
A project to put 130 wind turbines on 24 square miles off Nantucket Sound has generated a lot of hot air in Massachusetts and Washington. Contained in the arguments pro and con are partial facts, misconceptions, outright lies and hysteria. What we're not getting is a rational analysis of the Cape Wind project's effects on the supply of and demand for electricity in New England.
In the interest of full disclosure, my company has spent more than 23 years in the energy business. We are the world's largest seller of ''petroleum coke,'' an alternative fuel, and produce a super-compliance coal and coal-bed methane, an alternative for natural gas. We have also explored wind farming in Kansas and California. Oh, and I own a summer house that overlooks Nantucket Sound.
Nearly four years ago, Jim Gordon, founder of Cape Wind, approached me about investing in the offshore wind farm. I decided to examine the economics and risks of the project. Gordon wouldn't share his economic model with us. So we made our own. At the time, we estimated that it would require $825 million to build a 420 megawatt offshore wind farm. Our model assumed that the turbines would operate 40 percent of the time and Cape Wind would produce 1.5 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year. The operating costs were estimated at $27.5 million per year or 1.8 cents per kwh; at an estimated price of 6.6 cents per kwh, the project would generate an average after-tax cash flow of $53.6 million per year, or $1.1 billion over 20 years, at an internal rate of return of 20.1 percent. Gordon confirmed with me the same numbers.
These calculations included a federal tax credit of 2.3 cents per kwh for the life of the project, totaling $37 million per year; an estimated 2.2 cents per kwh state credit of $35 million per year for alternative energy, and five years of accelerated depreciation. Altogether, taxpayers would subsidize Cape Wind to the tune of $72 million a year, passed on to the consumer as higher electricity rates. If it happened, Cape Cod residents' electricity bills would go up by $440 per year. Cape Wind needs the tax and energy subsidies in order to achieve a 20 percent rate of return, a requirement to secure financing for a high risk, new-technology offshore wind farm.
The more we examined Cape Wind's economic assumptions, the more the risks concerned us. If the political climate changed, the government could abolish tax and energy credits. Cape Wind's rate of return would drop to 7 percent. Moreover, the analysis did not include the estimated $50 million it would cost to upgrade the transmission lines from Mid-Cape to the Cape Cod Canal. Furthermore, through skillful lobbying, Cape Wind managed to avoid federal lease bonus payments, royalties and deposits for demolition upon abandonment of the project, required by the Department of Interior for all offshore oil and gas projects to operate in federal waters. This loophole is worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
As I thought the project too risky, I declined Gordon's offer to invest.
That forecast was four years ago and much has changed. Current estimates show that an offshore wind power plant producing 420 megawatts of electricity will cost roughly $1.6 billion instead of $825 million to build; it will operate only 30 percent of the time, delivering only 126 megawatts. It will have an operating cost of 9.3 cents per kwh instead of 1.8 cents per kwh. To earn the 20 percent return needed for financing, Cape Wind would have to sell electricity at 18 cents per kwh instead of 6.6 cents per kwh.
This is twice the current market rate of eight to nine cents per kwh. Such a cost would increase the price of electricity by $105 million per year over the current market. Under this scenario, Cape Cod residents would have to pay $1,300 more per year for their electricity if all incremental costs were charged and isolated to the Cape and nearby islands. Let's assume that Gordon does not want to make a 20 percent rate of return and that he decides to charge the current market rate of 8.5 cents per kwh. Cape Wind would only earn about a 3 percent rate of return. Take away the tax credits and the return is negative. For Cape Wind to be an attractive investment, it needs a subsidy of at least $100 million per year, or 10 cents per kwh.
What's driving this dramatic increase? Steel and construction costs have gone up rapidly over the last four years. Wind turbines must be built with steel not only to withstand a harsh, corrosive maritime environment but hurricane winds as well. Nantucket Sound has a construction window of only three to four months a year due to weather. Maintaining the windmills offshore will be expensive. Windmills offshore break down more than those onshore. The technology also has not been fully developed for U.S. offshore wind turbines.
The capacity factor of 40 percent - the amount the wind needs to blow to generate electricity - is another uncertainty. The wind would have to blow 25 miles per hour 40 percent of the year; scientific data suggests that Cape Wind will be lucky to get 30 percent. The wind on the Sound is fickle. And there is one cardinal rule in the power business: Customers want reliable electricity on demand. Cape Wind will not supply consistent electricity without constructing a second ''peaking plant.'' All of these uncertainties mean the final cost of the project will be greater than even the current estimates.
And don't believe the argument that offshore windmills will reduce the country's need for foreign oil. Nearly 90 percent of the country's oil goes to make motor gasoline, aviation fuel and related products. Only 1.9 percent goes into electrical generation, mainly peaking plants, and they produce only 3 percent of U.S. electricity. A wind farm the size of Cape Wind would still need a gas- or oil-fired peaking plant to ensure consistent electricity and result in some pollution.
Finally, any power plant developer needs a willing market to sell electricity. We checked the New England power grid to determine if there was a market for Cape Wind's electricity. Southeastern Massachusetts has a 50 percent excess power capacity and won't need more for perhaps the next decade. New England has a capacity of 33,000 megawatts and a peak demand of 27,000 megawatts. Even without the excess capacity, it would be a struggle to sell such expensive electricity.
If more electricity is needed in New England, there are other types of power plants that can meet the need without greatly increasing consumers' electric bill. A 420 megawatts gas-fired plant that delivered 400 megawatts would cost $261 million, supply electricity at 6.9 cents per kwh, have fuel costs of five cents per kwh and operating costs of 0.7 cents per kwh. An onshore wind farm of 420 megawatts would cost $600 million and deliver 126 megawatts at a price of 10 cents to 12 cents per kwh. It would have no fuel cost and an operating cost of about 0.5 cents per kwh.
When you do the math, it is clear that every other form of power generation would be cheaper to build, produce more electricity at a consistent rate and save consumers more money. When you consider the costs and risks of an offshore wind farm, and the fact that New England does not need more power, the project becomes nonsensical, a giant boondoggle for the benefit of one developer.
William Koch of Osterville, founder and president of Oxbow Corp., received a Ph.D in chemical engineering from MIT. This column first appeared in The Wall Street Journal.
CAPE WIND LEGISLATIVE PROPONENTS STOOP TO LIES AND MISREPRESENTATION
69 MASSACHUSETTS LEGISLATORS SIGN LETTER FILLED WITH MISREPRESENTATIONS TO the U.S. CONGRESS
A misleading letter prepared by Frank I. Smizik, Chairman of the House Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture and State Rep for the 15th Norfalk District was sent to the U.S. Congress today. In a perfect example of the blind leading the blind, the letter was co-signed by 68 other uninformed State legislators.
Smizik, who is suppose to be the Chairman of the States Natural Resource Committee appears to not have any idea about the natural resource where the 24 square mile wind plant is located. For instance, Smizik falsely states " Any vessel with more than a 2 foot draft attempting to navigate these waters would run aground". He goes on to make further misrepresentations by stating "Commercial fishing in draggers and ferry traffic are impossible in this area." This must come as quite a surprise to the hundreds of commercial fisherman that catch up to 60% of their total annual catch on Horseshoe Shoals. Even the Cape Wind developer Jim Gordan is honest enough to admit that the wind towers are in waters up to 35 feet deep. If Mr. Smizik truly believes that Cape Wind's 24 square mile project is in only 2 feet of water, then as Resource Chairman, he better start working on the Federal and State dredging permits that Cape Wind has never applied for.
Smizik's letter goes on to further misrepresent that the navigation issues raised about the hazards created by the Cape Wind industrial plant are "misplaced". Apparently Smizik has not read the letters of strong objection from the 4000 plus members of the Massachusetts Fisherman's Partnership, the Massachusetts Steamship Authority, Hy-Line Cruises or the 3 Cape and Island Airport Commissions. He refers to these very serious concerns as "allegations".
Smizik goes on to say that Cape Wind has reached an agreement with the Town of Yarmouth for siting transmission lines. What he fails to mention is that is only if the wind farm is approved and that the Yarmouth Selectman are in unanimous opposition to this industrial wind farm 5-0.
The gross misrepresentations in this letter to our United States Congress is an outrage. The fact that it was co-signed by 68 other representatives of our Massachusetts State legislature is even more outrageous. The representatives listed as signatories should be ashamed of themselves for being allowed to be used as pawns in such a violation of trust of the people of Massachusetts.
The threats to the health and welfare of our Nantucket Sound and ocean sanctuary are very real. The issues of safety and navigation risks created by wind farm radar interference will be proven unacceptable by the Department of Defense / FAA investigation. The fact that Nantucket Sound is the economic engine from which 90% of the Cape and Islands income is derived is undeniable.
As the Chairman of the House Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture and State Rep for the 15th Norfalk District , Mr Smizik knows that if he made these false and inaccurate statements because of his lack of knowledge about the industrial wind plant and Nantucket Sound he owes the citizens of Massachusetts and the U.S. Congress an immediate apology, retraction and correction.
As a licensed Attorney of Law, Mr Smizik also knows that if he knowingly made these false and deceptive statements to Congress, it would be an act of fraud.......
We have attached a link to the letter so that our readers can make their own judgment call.
IS THE AMERICAN WIND INDUSTRY BETTER OFF WITHOUT THE BLACK EYE THAT CAPE WIND IS CAUSING?
WINDSTOP believes the answer is YES..........
The poorly chosen profit driven location that Cape Wind has picked is already setting the wind industry back years. The navigation issues WindStop and other agencies have raised in the past and soon in the future could possibly cripple the offshore wind industry for years to come. For example, the issue of radar interference on air traffic, sea navigation and defense systems was forced into the U.S. as a direct result of the hazardous location of Cape Wind,which is in the middle of 3 of the busiest airports in Massachusetts and is located dangerously close to the 3 major shipping and ferry routes. Just today almost a dozen wind farms in Wisconsin have been put on hold because of the on going Department of Defense / FAA Study now in process as a direct result of issues raised by the hazardous location of the Cape Wind project. http://www.businessnorth.com/pr.asp?RID=1818
Soon Windstop and the people of the Cape and Islands will be raising the issues of oil spills from the 40,000 gallons of transformer oil which Cape Wind and other offshore wind farms plan inside fishing grounds just off our coastal beaches similar to our virgin Cape Cod beaches, we will be requesting an accurate bird radar assessment from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and we will be pushing to kill any FAA approval in the middle of our 3 airports and 400,000 flights a year. Could Cape Wind's insistence on permitting such a hazardous project further effect the offshore wind industry and projects such as the Long Island Wind Farm? You bet, just ask the Wisconsin and Texas wind farm developers now put on hold.
It is now time for Mr. Gordan, his investors and Cape Wind to do the right thing for the American wind industry. Withdraw this hazardous project from inside Nantucket Sound and find an appropriate offshore site. Find a location that has the support of the local people, Governor, Senator and Congressman such as the LIPA and Galveston projects have. Stop this insane attempt to destroy our cultural heritage, ocean sanctuary, economic engine and fertile fishing grounds for pure profit. This was a poorly chosen hazardous site from the start and all the lobbying in Washington will never change that. The people of the Cape and Islands are devoted to protecting our Cape and Islands heritage and we are fully committed to showing the world why Cape Wind is a perfect example of the type of hazardous site and resulting press that the offshore wind industry should be avoiding.
WindStop is not against wind power, however, further pursuit of this wind plant permit inside our beaches, our fishing grounds, our ocean sanctuary and our Nantucket Sound will only force WindStop and the people of the Cape and Islands to continue to raise the very serious issues that the wind industry can not afford at this time, as evidenced by the recent FAA denials in Texas and the dozen wind plants now on hold in Wisconsin.
WindStop therefore suggests that for the good of the offshore wind industry, that AWEA and other industry leaders encourage Cape Wind and it's investors to withdraw it's application from Nantucket Sound. Mr. Gordan has not spent any more money than the local citizens of the Cape and Islands have contributed to stop this project , not for profit, they have donated their hard earned money just to stop the industrialization of our ocean sanctuary and the risk of forever destroying the historic charm of this national treasure.
The further pursuit of Cape Winds hazardous site that completely ignores the issues raised by the local people, Governor, Senator, Congressman and Attorney General can only further harm the reputation and great potential future of the American wind industry.
Respectfully,
Windstop and Nantucket Sound
URGENT CALL TO ACTION!!!!!!!!!!
PLEASE USE THE AUTOMATIC SOS LETTER LINK BELOW TO CONTACT OUR SENATORS AND CONGRESSMAN AND SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE PASSAGE OF THE PENDING COAST GUARD BILL
WHAT IS SO CLEAN ABOUT A 10 STORY, 40,000 GALLON OIL FILLED TRANSFORMER IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR FISHING GROUNDS< JUST OFF OUR VIRGIN BEACHES?
SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY - BEACON HILL INSTITUTE STUDY
CAPE WIND $$$$$$
HOW MANY MILLIONS OF TAX and RATE PAYERS DOLLARS CAPE WIND WILL MAKE WHILE DESTROYING OUR VIRGIN FISHING GROUNDS AND PRISTINE BEACHES.
Subsidies said key to wind farm
By KEVIN DENNEHY STAFF WRITER
A study being released today by the Beacon Hill Institute reaffirms that Cape Wind Associates' plan to build a wind farm on Nantucket Sound would not be feasible without Massachusetts renewable energy ''green'' credits.
RelatedFor more on the proposed offshore wind farm projects, see our special resources site.
But when boosted by a combination of those state incentives and federal subsidies, the developer of the proposed wind farm can look forward to a 25 percent return on its investment, according to the Suffolk University-based group.
Between subsidies and credits, Cape Wind could stand to receive about $731 million - or 77 percent of the $950 million construction costs - and 48 percent of the revenues it would generate, the report concludes.
''The policy question that this amount of subsidy raises is whether the project's benefit is worth the huge public subsidies that the developer gets,'' write Jonathan Haughton and David Tuerck, authors of the report.
Although they don't try to answer that question specifically, a 2004 report by the same Beacon Hill group concluded that the costs of the offshore wind project outweighed its benefits.
Credibility questioned
Mark Rodgers, a Cape Wind spokesman, yesterday questioned the credibility of the analysis, and of the Beacon Hill Institute itself, since the earlier report was underwritten by a staunch opponent of the Nantucket Sound project and Cape property owner.
And he questioned why critics slam the developer for accepting clean energy incentives they claim to endorse.
''How can one honestly claim to support these incentives in one breath,'' Rodgers wrote in a three-page response, ''and then vilify a company in the next breath for possibly qualifying to receive these incentives by producing a substantial quantity of clean wind power that the incentives were created to encourage?''
The report, which one of the authors called an update of earlier research, comes as the U.S. Congress considers a policy that could doom the wind farm.
If built today, the 130-turbine proposal, whose cost is approaching $1 billion, would be the nation's first offshore wind farm.
Veto authority sought
As soon as this week lawmakers will consider a provision in an $8.7 billion Coast Guard bill that would give the Bay State a specific authority to veto the Nantucket Sound project.
More than two years since its last report - and with the Cape Wind project very much in the news - the group wanted to update the data from the original research, said Haughton, an associate professor of economics at Suffolk.
''We wanted to recognize that this wind farm would not be viable without state subsidies,'' he said. ''But with these subsidies, it's looking highly profitable.''
Cape Wind officials concede the project would be economically unfeasible without a federal tax credit that currently would defray 1.9 cents from their annual tax bills for every kilowatt hour of energy their facilities produce during the first 10 years of operation.
Just as critical, though, according to Haughton, is the cost of green credits, which electricity resellers buy and sell as part of the state's push for renewable energy sources under its Renewable Portfolio Standard.
By 2009, all electricity suppliers in the state must utilize renewable sources for at least 4 percent of their electricity production.
It is uncertain how much Cape Wind will be able to demand for green credits when construction is done, Haughton said.
For now, though, the costs are higher than expected, he said, in large part because there are so few sources of renewable energy in the state.
According to the report, the current cost of green credit is 5.51 cents per kilowatt hour - more than twice the 2.74 cents per kilowatt hour projected in 2002 by Sustainable Energy Advantage and LaCapra Associates.
And while the addition of Cape Wind into the state's energy portfolio would drive down the costs of the credits, the developer would still stand to expect about $487 million in credits during the 25-year lifespan of the project, according to the authors.
Egan family connection
Although the group authors said they received ''no financial support'' for the study, the Egan Family Foundation spent $125,000 to underwrite two previous Beacon Hill Institute reports.
Three members of the Egans' family trust have sat on the board for the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, the Cape-based group trying to kill the wind farm.
''(The Beacon Hill Institute) has coordinated closely with the alliance over the years,'' Rodgers said, ''even filling in for the alliance for the 'con' side of a debate about Cape Wind on Cape Cod and by participating in alliance 'media availabilities.'''
Rodgers conceded that Cape Wind must raise the money to build the project, and that it will be eligible for federal and state credits.
But he said those credits are not paid by taxpayers, but by electric resellers that will be required to buy more green credits over the next several years.
''No one really knows what the value of (the green credits) will be to Cape Wind ... the one thing that is sure is that Cape Wind will make this renewable energy policy mandate more affordable to electric customers than would otherwise have been the case if Cape Wind is not built.''
Cape Wind critics, though, say the report provides a helpful insight into the numbers behind the project and the impact it will have on the public.
''Cape Wind has been telling the public that we'll save money if it's built,'' said Audra Parker, assistant executive director of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound.
''This study confirms just how expensive electricity generation from offshore wind is. And it's the public that will be footing most of the bill.''
She called the Egan family's connection to the earlier Beacon Hill Institute studies ''totally irrelevant.''
''They can question it, but what substantive item can they question?'' she said. ''Show us your numbers.''
Rodgers called the report ''overly simplistic'' with ''sweeping assumptions,'' citing, in part, the lack of discussion of annual lease fees the developer will have to pay the federal government, or the $350,000 annual ''host agreement'' payment to Yarmouth.
And he argued that wind energy is not the only energy source that is eligible for government subsidies. The same goes for oil, coal and nuclear.
Haughton said the group had not compared the subsidy amounts with subsidies received by other energy producers, ''though it's on our agenda.
Kevin Dennehy can be reached at kdennehy@capecodonline.com.
The Greenpeace ship is surrounded by fishing trawlers and local boaters to protest the closing of the mobile gear fishing grounds by the construction of the wind plant.
Captain Ron Borjenson leading his fellow fishermen to the WindStop/Fishermen boat protest against Greenpeace to try to save their fishing grounds from the industrial wind plant which will forever prevent them from fishing.
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL RADAR SCREEN WIND FARM INTERFERENCE
CAPE WIND IS GOING TO HAVE TO FACE THE FACT THAT RADAR INTERFERENCE IS GOING TO KILL THE PROJECT. THEY HAVE CHOSEN A RIDICULOUS LOCATION IN THE MIDDLE OF 3 MAJOR FERRY AND SHIPPING ROUTES AND ALSO IN THE MIDDLE OF 3 OF THE STATES BUSIEST AIRPORTS WITH OVER 400,000 FLIGHTS A YEAR.
THEY WILL CREATE THE NANTUCKET TRIANGLE WHERE RADAR SYSTEMS ARE RENDERED WORTHLESS TO NAVIGATORS.
FAA to probe turbines' risk to radar
By DAVID SCHOETZ and KEVIN DENNEHY STAFF WRITERS
Concerned about findings in the United Kingdom, the Federal Aviation Administration will conduct its own evaluation into the effects of wind turbines on air traffic control systems.
In an April 10 letter to U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, the Cape's congressman and a Cape Wind opponent, the head of the FAA affirmed the agency's concerns about wind turbines.
RelatedFor more on the proposed offshore wind farm projects, see our special resources site.
Studies conducted by the British military last year found that turbine blades can produce ''hole(s) in detection'' in air defense radar systems, at times causing aircraft to become obscured from view.
Delahunt's office released the letter last night, a day before wind farm advocates plan to stage a Washington, D.C., press conference pressuring federal lawmakers to defeat a controversial provision in an $8.7 billion Coast Guard bill that could kill the project.
''The results of these trials/studies seem to confirm our concern of potential interference from wind turbines to our own air traffic control radar systems,'' Marion C. Blakely, administrator of the FAA, wrote to Delahunt.
The letter, which does not specifically name the Nantucket Sound project, cites a March 2 meeting where the U.S. leaders were briefed by a representative from the United Kingdom's Ministry of Defence about the effects of wind turbines on radar there.
Among the participants during that meeting were the FAA, various military branches and the Department of Interior, the lead agency reviewing the proposal by Cape Wind Associates to build 130 turbines in Nantucket Sound.
In recent months, Delahunt urged federal leaders to conduct such research.
Delahunt staff members said yesterday they were not aware of any specific time frame or studies. ''But now that they've notified a member of Congress, it will begin in earnest,'' said Steven Broderick, a Delahunt spokesman.
The U.S. military has been quiet about its recent investigation into the impact of wind turbines on radar. But the FAA recently froze a permit for a wind park in Wisconsin until the Air Force is sure the turbines will not interfere with a nearby radar station.
In May, the British Ministry of Defence will conduct further trials on the effects wind turbines have on air traffic control, Julian Chafer, head of safeguarding for the Defence Estates, said in a recent e-mail to the Times.
THE BOSTON HERALD
May 12, 2006
CONGRESSMAN DELAHUNT SETS THE RECORD STRAIGHT ABOUT THE REASONS WHY CAPE WIND SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED INSIDE NANTUCKET SOUND.
Cape Wind sought to blow past regulators
By Congressman William Delahunt Friday, May 12, 2006
Recently, some have suggested that Congress is trying to change the rules of the game for the developers of the wind farm proposed for Nantucket Sound. Some have even implied that the rules are being unfairly manipulated to sidetrack Cape Wind after years of regulatory review - and millions of dollars expended by the developer.
Nothing could be further from truth.
Fact: When Jim Gordon and Cape Wind applied for a permit with the Army Corps of Engineers, there were no rules.
Gordon filed his application in 2001. At the time, he possessed no clear legal right to build a wind farm in federal waters. Congress only authorized the development of such facilities in federal waters last August. He was taking a gamble - one that promised huge profits - that he could justify his project under an 1899 law designed to regulate docks and moorings.
The emergence of the Cape Wind project and others prompted Congress last year to authorize creation of a policy for offshore wind farms. The rules are now being written by the Minerals Management Service and will most likely call for wind farm sites to be chosen based on a consultation process with states. The rules will no doubt require wind projects to avoid marine sanctuaries, participate in a transparent competitive bidding process and ensure that the rights to use federal waters produce tax revenues.
It is Cape Wind that wants to play by its own rules.
Fact: Tucked away in the energy bill that was signed into law last year was a cleverly written, innocuous provision that would exempt Cape Wind from many rules now being written to regulate emerging wind farms - specifically, federal competitive bidding requirements.
This language was so artfully crafted that I needed to enlist the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service to decode it. Cape Wind’s special exemption escaped the notice of Congress and the public. That is the real outrage.
Fact: Cape Wind has morphed into a no-bid deal, engineered in secret and financed with $1 billion in taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies.
The same energy bill that gave Cape Wind a no-bid deal also provides vital incentives for renewable energy, including expanded tax credits. Gordon and his investors could reap annual savings of $27 million in federal tax credits and as much as $82 million in state incentives. Investors, not fixed- or low-income families, would benefit the most from Cape Wind power.
Fact: The so-called “exhaustive process” that Cape Wind claims it has participated in has been extensively criticized by the U.S. Oceans Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Interior.
Cape Wind’s draft Environmental Impact Statement emerged from this so-called “process” having earned EPA’s lowest grade. Interior’s criticisms are over 50 pages long. Now the FAA and Defense Department are raising red flags about national security and air traffic safety.
With respect to the substance of the Coast Guard provisions, Congress has already established a precedent by giving our governors and the Coast Guard the authority to veto and regulate offshore LNG projects. Nobody is suggesting that was a mistake.
Let’s not forget that 30 years ago it was the people of the Cape and Islands who convinced Massachusetts to designate all of Nantucket Sound an ocean sanctuary. It was the state that designated much of this area off-limits to development, and nominated it for national sanctuary protection.
In the end, rules are important. It’s the reason why we insist that houses aren’t built on un-zoned land and in compliance with building codes.
"Until the day comes when everyone agrees to play by the same rules, this fight to protect Nantucket Sound will go on."
Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Four Mass. congressmen endorse anti-wind farm bill
A CLOSER LOOK
By Andrew Miga THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON— Four Massachusetts congressmen say they will vote for a measure that could kill the proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm as the face-off over the project intensifies on Capitol Hill.
U.S. Reps. William D. Delahunt, Barney Frank, Edward J. Markey and Richard E. Neal plan to vote for the provision, according to a survey of the state’s delegation by The Associated Press over the past several days. They say the state deserves a strong say in the approval process.
A fifth lawmaker, U.S. Rep. Michael E. Capuano, is a probable “yes” vote. The rest of the 10-member House delegation was either undecided or refused comment.
U.S. Reps. Martin T. Meehan, John F. Tierney and James P. McGovern said they were still reviewing the measure. Reps. Stephen F. Lynch and John W. Olver declined comment on how they plan to vote.
The 130-turbine project proposed by Cape Wind Associates has stoked controversy for five years. Delahunt, who represents Cape Cod and is a leading project foe, brands it as a government giveaway because the project is exempt from competitive bidding rules.
“This is not supposed to be the gold-rush era,” said Delahunt, who also cites environmental and safety concerns about the project.
The provision targeting the Cape Wind project was slipped into the $8.7 billion Coast Guard reauthorization bill that was approved by a House-Senate conference committee last month.
The amendment would hand veto power for the project to Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney or his successor. Romney opposes the wind farm.
The company touts the project as a way to meet the region’s energy needs in an environmentally friendly way.
Opponents say the massive towers will create a visual blight, hurt fish and birds, and hamper the fishing and aviation industries. They also have raised concerns about interference with military and civilian aircraft radar.
The project has been under review by various federal and state agencies for nearly five years.
Some project backers contend the anti-Cape Wind amendment was a backdoor deal arranged by Sen. Theodore F. Stevens, R-Alaska, and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass. Both senators have denied the charge, saying their aim is to give states a stronger say on such projects.
Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., is also undecided on the project.
Kennedy alleged Cape Wind benefited from a “sweetheart deal” provision tucked into the energy bill passed by Congress last summer that exempted the project from competitive bidding. Cape Wind will reap about $280 million in government subsidies, Kennedy added.
Cape Wind has denied the charges, saying the energy bill reflects about $20 million in development work the firm has already put into the project.
Both sides in the long, costly fight over the nation’s first off-shore wind farm are pressing hard for support on Capitol Hill. It is unclear when the House and Senate will vote on the Coast Guard bill, but the political jockeying has grown more heated in recent days.
Kennedy, who is rallying support for the anti-Cape Wind provision, made an impassioned Senate floor speech on the issue Tuesday. Last week, the Bush administration voiced opposition to the measure.
Capuano said the overall spending bill is vital to his district, which includes Boston’s Coast Guard facility.
“I’d probably vote for it,” he said. “It’d be a mistake to let one provision override a bill that’s in the country’s best interest.”
Politics of wind Hypocritical supporters of wind farm continue to ignore the larger issues.
If a private developer discovered a way to spin gold from huge turbines in the middle of Nantucket Sound, every environmental organization from here to California would line up in opposition.
Instead, the Conservation Law Foundation, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Greenpeace and other environmental groups are so blinded by the benefits of wind energy - which few doubt - that they fail to see the greater issues at stake.
At stake is the industrialization of a national treasure for the sake of one wind farm that would generate just 1 percent of the power in the Northeast.
At stake is the ability of one developer to stake a claim on 24 square miles of Nantucket Sound solely because the federal government has so far failed to properly zone the ocean.
Environmental groups would vehemently oppose the gold-making machines because they would recognize that the government should first identify appropriate and inappropriate areas to develop our oceans.
That's why we're a bit amused by all this fuss about ''back-room deals'' and ''back-door amendments'' to scuttle the project. Proponents of the wind farm are crying foul over a provision in the Coast Guard authorization bill, crafted by Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, that would give the governor of Massachusetts veto power over the project.
Their objections are so hypocritical because, if there were similar back-room deals on Capitol Hill to push the project along, they would certainly look the other way. The fact is millions of lobbying dollars are being spent on both sides of the debate to promote or kill the project.
Cape Wind was operating in back rooms appropriating public land for private profit long before the Stevens amendment. After all, it was Cape Wind that took advantage of the ''doughnut'' - the unprotected waters of Nantucket Sound that are completely surrounded by state-designated ocean sanctuaries.
On March 2, at a meeting with editorial writers, Gov. Mitt Romney angrily denounced such tactics. ''It's absolutely outrageous that the federal government would allow'' a wind farm in an area completely surrounded by the Cape and Islands Ocean Sanctuary.
''We zoned all these waters around Nantucket Sound (three miles from the Cape and Islands' shores) to be preserved,'' and then the federal government allows a developer to site a massive wind farm in the 'doughnut' where the waters are not protected. ''How could you do this to us?''
U.S. Rep. William Delahunt said lawmakers keep making ''ad hoc'' attempts to stop the project because of the lack of a comprehensive national ocean policy. ''It never should have come to this point. ... What we ought to do is zone the ocean.''
Until that happens, Senator Kennedy, Congressman Delahunt and others will continue to find ways to prevent the industrialization of Nantucket Sound - and we wish them well.
SENATOR KENNEDY CUTS THROUGH THE WHINING FROM CAPE WIND AND TALKS ABOUT THE REAL THREATS FROM THIS 24 SQUARE MILE INDUSTRIAL WIND PLANT IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR SHIPPING LANES, FISHING GROUNDS, 3 AIRPORTS AND THE MASSACHUSETTS OCEAN SANCTUARY.
Promote wind within national policy
By SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY
Three years ago, I wrote in the Cape Cod Times that we need to promote wind energy through a comprehensive national policy that applies to all wind projects on the Outer Continental Shelf. I still believe that today.
I also believe that wind energy has a strong future in our country. There is a broad bipartisan consensus to encourage alternative energy sources, and I support substantial state and federal tax incentives for wind energy development.
Along with those incentives, however, offshore developments for alternative energy should be subject to uniform standards of review that include the best interests of the states, businesses and communities that will be directly affected by siting decisions. That kind of review - with uniform standards - has not happened with the proposed Cape Wind development.
Instead, a private developer unilaterally selected the site and, in the energy bill passed by Congress last year, the Cape Wind project received specific exemptions from the new national offshore wind development policy.
Under that law, the proposed Cape Wind site in Nantucket Sound is categorically exempted from the competitive bidding policy that will apply to all future proposed sites. In addition, as the Department of Interior develops the national policy, Cape Wind cannot be required to resubmit any documents or seek renewal of any preliminary approvals that were granted before the national policy was in place.
That kind of preferential treatment is unwise for our country, and it's unfair to Massachusetts.
Serious safety questions are raised by the project. Horseshoe Shoal - the location chosen by the developer - is in the center of commerce and transportation between the Cape Cod mainland and the island communities of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket, where year-round residents rely on boat and air travel. Three airports surround the project site.
Less than a week ago, John T. Griffin, vice chairman of the Barnstable Airport Commission, and Edward Barrett, president of the Massachusetts Fishermen's Partnership, wrote that each year three million people navigate the waters around the 24-square mile proposed project site and nearly 400,000 flights move through its airspace. In their view, erecting such a project in the midst of
such a commercially active area that often experiences zero visibility conditions would be ''utter recklessness.''
Moreover, the Federal Aviation Administration has recently begun looking into the radar effects of large-scale wind turbines in close proximity to airports. Last month, the FAA designated a wind energy project in Wisconsin a hazard to aviation, and informed U.S. Rep. William Delahunt that recent briefings with United Kingdom Ministry of Defence representatives ''seem to confirm our concern of potential interference from wind turbines to our own traffic control radar systems.'' The FAA is bolstering its reviews of such projects as a result of these briefings and is working closely with a Department of Defense team that is investigating how wind energy development impacts critical military radar systems.
We expect these issues to be addressed with respect to future offshore wind energy development projects governed by the national policy, but Cape Wind received preliminary FAA approval before the agency had begun examining these concerns in such detail.
There are other concerns as well. More than 30 years ago, Massachusetts designated Nantucket Sound as a state ocean sanctuary, and both state and federal agencies have proposed national maritime sanctuary protection.
The Horseshoe Shoal site is geographically unique, a doughnut-hole of federal property bounded on all sides by state-protected waters. But the ecological health and value of the Nantucket Sound doesn't begin or end at these boundaries.
Project proponents argue either that all these issues will be addressed, or that they are subordinate to the larger goals of the project. I disagree that they should simply be subordinated, and I no longer have any confidence they'll be addressed.
In light of all of these questions, I strongly support the provision in the Coast Guard legislation that will give the Coast Guard commandant and the governor of Massachusetts - not the developer - the final decision over whether this project should be constructed in the middle of the state-designated ocean sanctuary.
Edward M. Kennedy of Hyannisport, a Democrat, represents Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate.
Kennedy:
"Wind Farm is a BACK ROOM DEAL"
FROM WIRE REPORTS
WASHINGTON - Both sides in the bitter fight over a proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm are pressing hard as a showdown in Congress looms on a measure that could kill the project.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., yesterday called the proposed project a ''backroom deal'' and a giveaway to Cape Wind.
Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., remains undecided, as he has been through the nearly five years the plan to put 130 wind turbines off the Cape coast has been on the table.
''These are uncharted waters,'' Kerry spokeswoman April Boyd said yesterday. ''We want to see the final environmental impact studies on the project.''
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Kennedy, and the Cape's congressman, Rep. William Delahunt, oppose the project.
On Capitol Hill, an amendment targeting the Cape Wind Associates project was quietly slipped into the $8.7 billion Coast Guard reauthorization bill that could doom the wind farm. The measure was approved by a House-Senate conference committee earlier this month. It is unclear when the House and Senate will vote on the measure.
U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, was a key backer of the Coast Guard amendment, which gives veto power over the project to the governor of Massachusetts.
Kerry is still reviewing the bill and has not reached any decision, Boyd said yesterday. His indecision is in stark contrast to Kennedy, whose staunch opposition to Cape Wind has made him a lightning rod for environmental groups and other project backers.
Kennedy, in a telephone interview with The Associated Press yesterday, bristled at the complaints, saying the state should have the say, not Cape Wind president Jim Gordon.
''People ought to be concerned with the back-room deal that was given to Cape Wind,'' Kennedy said. ''(Gordon) has just looked to come in on a financial grab for 24 square miles of property.''
Cape Wind benefited from a provision tucked into the sweeping energy bill Congress passed last summer that exempted the project from competitive bidding, Kennedy said. Cape Wind will also get about $280 million in government subsidies, he said.
''They won't have to bid for it,'' Kennedy said. ''That is the real outrage. I'm not going to be quiet on this issue.''
A great editorial pointing out how ridiculous the media's one sided coverage is infact ignoring radar interference, navigation and the other destructive impacts of the wind plant to the Cape and Islands.
BOSTON GLOBE
Wind plan needs airing
By Eileen McNamara, Globe Columnist | April 26, 2006
Senator Edward M. Kennedy has a home in Hyannis Port and Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly has a cottage in Chatham. Their critics say that is why the two Massachusetts Democrats oppose construction of 130 windmills in Nantucket Sound; they don't want steel turbines spoiling their view.
Governor Mitt Romney has a summer place on Lake Winnipesaukee in central New Hampshire and Lieutenant Governor Kerry M. Healey has a vacation home in Vermont. Those turbines are about as tall as the Statue of Liberty, but I am pretty sure you cannot see them from either Republican's patio in northern New England.
What's their motive?
Maybe resistance to constructing the nation's first offshore wind facility on Horseshoe Shoal is about more than the property values of folks lucky enough to own homes on Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard, or Cape Cod. Maybe it is also about whether a private, for-profit developer ought to be handed 24 square miles of publicly owned federal land without having to submit to a competitive bidding process. Maybe it is about whether Congress ought to devise clear rules for development of the ocean floor before, not after, entrepreneurs start erecting fields of wind turbines offshore.
Don't Jim Gordon, chief executive and president of Cape Wind, and his investors have more financial self-interest in pushing this project than Kennedy and Reilly have in killing it? The Kennedy compound is lovely, but the value of those whitewashed houses does not compare to the tens of millions that Cape Wind will reap if the wind energy facility is built.
In five years of carping at one another, the two sides in this bitter debate have expended most of their energy sullying one another's motives, leaving plenty of questions still unanswered about the impact of the project on marine navigation and local air traffic. Ferries crisscross Nantucket Sound, carrying more than 3 million passengers a year. Three regional airports serve the popular tourist area and pilots have expressed concern about radar interference and the height of the turbines in the often fogbound sound.
Those are substantive concerns, too easily obscured by the pressing need to address this nation's unhealthy dependence on foreign oil. Kennedy, Reilly, Romney, and Healey all support the development of renewable energy resources and each has embraced wind as a promising alternative to oil and gas. It is simply nonsense to suggest that a politician's opposition to a particular project is an attempt to scuttle any future development of wind power.
There is legitimate outrage being expressed at the back-room maneuvering earlier this month on Capitol Hill that could hand Romney the power to veto the project. There is cause to object to the last-minute inclusion in an $8.7 billion Coast Guard appropriation bill of an amendment that would make the wind project subject to a Massachusetts gubernatorial veto. Process matters. Public policy ought to be made in the open, not behind closed doors.
But it is hard to empathize with incensed proponents of the Cape Wind project who have spent five years characterizing any opposition as the self-interested whining of wealthy waterfront property owners. Nantucket Sound does not belong to Kennedy or Reilly. It is a national treasure, enjoyed as much by schoolteachers from Tulsa on a two-week holiday as it is by the landed gentry windsurfing off their Nantucket shorefront. To appreciate its aesthetic beauty, to want to preserve its natural wonder are no more a mark of elitism than it would be to resist development of the Grand Canyon.
Republican Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico plans to mount an assault on the amendment on the floor. He should, and those who think Massachusetts ought to have a voice in a huge industrial development 6 miles off its coastline should stand up and say so. It might even turn into an enlightening debate.
And, no, I do not own a house on the Cape.
WIND FARM RADAR RISK IS UNACCEPTABLE TO SEA AND AIR NAVIGATION
SUNDAY BOSTON GLOBE
CAPE WIND DEBATE - JOHN T. GRIFFIN, VICE CHAIRMAN, BARNSTABLE AIRPORT COMMISSION AND EDWARD BARRETT, PRESIDENT of MASSACHUSETTS FISHERMEN's PARTNERSHIP
The proposal is reckless
By John T. Griffin and Edward Barrett | April 23, 2006
IN THE seemingly endless debate these past weeks over a congressional amendment on the Cape Wind project, the focus has largely been on the bare-knuckle politics between the developer and opponents, not the actual substance of a debate that has raged on for more than four years. That battle, now being fought on a national stage, culminated in the adoption of language that authorizes the governor of Massachusetts or the commandant of the Coast Guard to veto the project.
While Cape Wind has targeted politics and well-funded opponents as the culprits, the real issue -- and villain -- is the utter recklessness of building a massive industrial-scale project across 24 square miles of Nantucket Sound. That's where Cape Wind wants to put 130 steel towers, a location where two ferry routes and the main shipping channel form the ''Nantucket Triangle." They could not have picked a worse location.
More than 3 million people cross the sound every year on commercial ferries within close proximity to the planned turbine field. There are more than 400,000 flights through that airspace every year with hundreds of small aircraft barely flying above the 426 foot height of these turbine blades. Anyone who knows Nantucket Sound knows that a clear day can quickly turn into pea soup fog with nearly zero visibility, leaving even experienced mariners bewildered about who -- and what -- is out there in their path. Not to mention the commercial fishermen who rely on Nantucket Sound for half their catch and know full well that safety concerns will result in restrictions or outright prohibition on fishing in the Cape Wind grid.
The congressional amendment, filed by Alaskan Representative Don Young, the only licensed mariner in Congress, was at first a prescriptive solution that would have imposed a 1.5 nautical mile buffer zone between the shipping channels, ferry lanes, and the nearest turbine.
According to a United Kingdom study, radar interference was detected at 1.5 nautical miles from the wind turbines at the North Hoyle wind plant in that country. A 2004 UK study concluded that ''clutter in the radar display, due to the presence of wind turbines, was found to be considerable" and that ''these effects can be mitigated by vessels keeping well clear of wind farms in open waters or where navigation is restricted, keeping the wind farm boundaries at suitable distances from established traffic routes."
Wayne C. Lamson, general manager of the Steamship Authority, wrote to Young that ''under certain wind and sea conditions, it occasionally becomes necessary for our captains to use tacking maneuvers outside of our normal navigational tracks . . . ." Lamson added, ''The area is very congested at times with commercial and recreational traffic. With the wind farm as currently proposed for Nantucket Sound, it has the potential for creating a significant hazard to safe navigation for our vessels and other users of the waterways."
But rather than attacking the substance of Young's amendment, Cape Wind's proponents have derided Young as the architect of the ''Alaskan Ambush." Ignoring the fact that his committee was the logical place from which to file the amendment and that his congressional career qualifies him to address issues of navigational safety, Cape Wind has attacked him for simply being from Alaska with no apparent right to get involved in an issue in Massachusetts.
The avalanche of expert opinion supports the conclusion that this project would pose an unacceptable risk to mariners and the general public, and no amount of name-calling and mudslinging is going to change those facts.
This issue won't be settled by a congressman from Alaska, but rather the governor of Massachusetts, who has appropriate oversight of a unique geography of federal water surrounded by state water, or the commandant of the US Coast Guard, who has appropriate expertise on navigational issues. They will decide if this project is worth the risks that it poses here in Massachusetts. From our vantage point, the answer is clearly no.
John T. Griffin is vice chairman of the Barnstable Airport Commission, a licensed pilot, and a former island ferry boat captain. Edward Barrett is president of the Massachusetts Fishermen's Partnership.
THE EDITOR OF THE MARTHA"S VINEYARD GAZETTE CLEARLY POINTS OUT THAT CAPE WIND HAS ALREADY PASSED IT'S OWN BACK DOOR AMENDMENT GIVING IT A SWEETHEART NO COMPETITIVE BID DEAL.
Wind Farm Is Favored in Bill
Special Interest Language Was Quietly Placed in Energy Act That Exempts Cape Wind From Public Bidding
By JULIA WELLS - EDITOR - APRIL 21, 2006
The hotly debated Cape Wind project - its backers now basking in the role of wounded underdog over a recent amendment to the U.S. Coast Guard authorization bill - was the direct beneficiary of a special interest provision slipped quietly into the federal Energy Policy Act before it was signed into law last year.
WINDSTOP.ORG IS NOT AGAINST WIND POWER, INFACT IT IS CAPE WIND THAT IS GIVING THE WIND INDUSTRY A BLACK EYE.
What we will not support is for a private developer to desecrate the middle of Nantucket Sound, a historic area completely surrounded by the Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuary and destroy our rich fishing grounds and the economic engine of our tourist based economy.
We will not allow a 40 story, 24 square mile steel forest, the size of the island of Manhattan, NY, with a 40,000 gallon oil filled transformer just off our virgin beaches in the middle of our fishing grounds.
We will not allow the radar interference from this project to prevent USCG search and sea rescue missions along with Air Traffic Controllers, and Ship Captains from being able to safely navigate our lifeline of both air and sea routes.
The developer has chosen a ridiculous site that is surrounded on three sides by heavily traveled shipping and ferry routes which carry millions of ship and aircraft passengers a year through some of the foggiest waters and air in the world.
The developer has selfishly chosen the only site in world that is surrounded by 3 shiiping and ferry lanes, while also being directly in the flight path of three of the busiest airports in Massachusetts, with over 400,000 flights a year.
This 24 square mile project will permanantly close out the mobile gear fisherman that have fished these waters for over a century, forcing fisherman out in to the more dangerous exposed waters to make a living.
Our opposition is not about NIMBYs, it is about our ECONOMIC SURVIVAL and our PHYSICAL SAFETY
GET THE REAL FACTS BY WATCHING OUR VIDEOS & REPORTS BELOW
By JASON KOLNOS STAFF WRITER
NANTUCKET - If island voters have their way, wind turbines will never be seen on Nantucket Sound.
In a nonbinding referendum yesterday, 66 percent of Nantucket voters opposed the construction of a wind farm in waters near the island.
Two-thirds of voters opposed the ballot question's request to ''support the generation of electricity by wind power as proposed for a site in Nantucket Sound.'' Of the 3,409 ballots cast, 2,156 people said no to the referendum.
All election results were preliminary last night.
''This is just another setback for Cape Wind because it's clear that local opposition to the project is overwhelming,'' said Audra Parker, assistant executive director of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, which is campaigning against the proposed wind farm. She said yesterday's balloting reaffirms the opposition offered by other islanders, such as the Nantucket Chamber of Commerce and the Nantucket Airport Commission.
Cape Wind Associates wants to build 130 417-foot wind turbines in a 24-square-mile section of Nantucket Sound, an ambitious plan that would be the nation's first offshore wind farm.
Matt Palmer, executive director of the wind farm advocacy group Clean Power Now, didn't see yesterday's vote as a major defeat for Cape Wind. He said voters were influenced by recent legislative activity targeted at Cape Wind in Washington, D.C.
The non-binding Nantucket ballot comes just days after a congressional vote that dealt the proposed wind farm a potentially crippling blow. Last week, federal lawmakers tentatively approved policy that would give the Bay State's governor authority to veto a wind project on Nantucket Sound.
''I don't think folks had a full understanding of what did or did not happen last week in Congress, and that has created a false impression that the project will likely not go forward,'' Palmer said.
Palmer said the high concentration of wealthy residents on the island also contributed to the lack of support for Cape Wind. He said research has shown that the higher a person's personal income, the less likely a person is to support the wind farm.
''Nantucket has some of the richest residents in the entire country,'' he said.
In other election results:
n Michael Kopko bested four other candidates for one seat on the board of selectmen. Kopko received 1,148 votes. The remaining candidates polled as follows: David C. Gray, 255; John McLaughlin, 298; Patty Roggeveen, 928; and Linda Williams, 589.
n Valerie Norton beat Steven Blashfield for a historic district commission seat, with 1,656 votes to 1,078 votes, respectively.
n John McLaughlin won a seat on the planning board over Charity Benz.
Staff writer Kevin Dennehy contributed to this report.
(Published: April 12, 2006)
WINDSTOP RELEASES UK MINISTRY OF DEFENSE ARMS WARFARE WIND FARM REPORTS
MAJOR EVIDENCE OF RADAR INTERFERENCE
BELOW YOU WILL FIND THE MOST ADVANCED RESEARCH IN THE WORLD AVAILABLE TODAY ON WIND FARM RADAR INTERFERENCE. THESE ARE THE SAME REPORTS NOW UNDER REVIEW BY THE US DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, HOMELAND SECURITY and FAA.
IN THESE REPORTS YOU WILL FIND THAT WIND FARMS INTERFERENCE IS QUICKLY BECOMING A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE.
ISSUES RAISED:
LOSS OF AIR CRAFT TRACKING ON AIR DEFENSE RADAR SYSTEMS UP TO ELEVATIONS OF 24,000 FEET
INABILITY OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS TO DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN AIRCRAFT AND FALSE TARGETS CREATED BY THE WIND FARMS.
THE LOSS OF RADAR USED ON SEARCH AND SEA, NAVIGATION and COLLISION AVOIDANCE SYSTEMS ON FISHING VESSELS, FERRY LINES AND COAST GUARD HELICOPTERS.
LETTERS TO THE FAA, HOMELAND SECURITY FROM CONGRESSMAN DELAHUNT.
LETTER FROM THE MINISTRY OF DEFENSE SHOWING THAT AT THIS TIME THERE IS NOT A SATISFACTORY SOLUTION TO THE RADAR INTERFERENCE ISSUE.
NANTUCKET SOUND HAS OVER 400,000 FLIGHTS A YEAR THROUGH THIS AIRSPACE.
NANTUCKET SOUND HAS SOME OF THE FOGGIEST WATERS IN THE WORLD.
MILLIONS OF PASSENGERS TRAVEL THESE WATERS EVERY YEAR. PLEASE DON'T LET NANTUCKET SOUND BECOME THE
CAPE WIND'S OIL FILLED TRANSFORMER IS BIGGER THAN THE NEW CAPE COD HOSPITAL ADDITION PICTURED IN THE HELICOPTER VIDEO TO THE RIGHT. DO THEY REALLY THINK WE BELIEVE THEM WHEN THEY SAY WE WILL ONLY SEE THE WIND FARM ON CLEAR DAYS? WATCH THE MOVIE AND YOU DECIDE.
IT IS TIME TO SEE CAPE WIND'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
What happened to wind power?
Beset by high costs, the Government's great hope for clean, sustainable electricity is drifting out to sea
By Tim Webb
Published: 16 April 2006
Earlier this month, over 300 company executives, consultants and advisers gathered at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre in Westminster for the annual offshore conference of the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA). Delegates say the mood was not as upbeat as in previous years. During coffee breaks, wind farm developers cornered turbine manufacturers to ask them when supply problems would be eased and the promised, more powerful models introduced. Talking among themselves, the developers agreed that many of the larger projects were no longer viable without more government support.
Offshore wind, like much of the policy on renewables trumpeted in the Energy White Paper three years ago, is floundering. Onshore wind isn't doing much better. Both are central to the Government meeting its targets for renewables.
The current energy minister, Malcolm Wicks (who writes below), is the third since the last review. He is preparing to start drafting the latest Energy White Paper after submissions to the consultation closed on Friday. Before he decides whether to sanction the building of more nuclear reactors, the Government is being warned that its last favoured technology, wind power, is in trouble.
At the end of 2005, according to the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), the farms installed in the UK generated just over 1,300 megawatts (MW) of electricity, the vast majority produced onshore. That's enough to power a city slightly larger than Birmingham and amounts to around 1.6 per cent of the UK's total generating capacity. The total contribution from renewable sources is just under 4 per cent, the rest mostly made up from old hydro projects in Scotland.
To get anywhere near the Government's target of generating a 10th of the UK's electricity from renewable sources like wind by 2010, rising to a fifth by 2020, hundreds of wind farms need to be built. With many of the most practical onshore sites already taken, much of the new capacity will have to come from offshore farms.
Under current conditions, this is unlikely to happen, say developers surveyed by The Independent on Sunday. Rather than becoming cheaper with experience and economies of scale, as the industry and Government had hoped, building offshore wind farms has got more expensive, says Dave Farrier, head of development for UK renewables at the German-owned energy giant E.ON.
In the past two years, the cost of building offshore farms has increased from around £1.2m per MW to £1.6m - almost twice as expensive as onshore projects. The soaring cost of steel, and the demand from Asia and the US for wind farms, have pushed up the price of turbines and limited the availability of the equipment needed to install them. Turbine makers like General Electric and Danish firm Vestas are concentrating on the much larger, and more proven, global market for onshore farms. Indeed, while the UK is planning to build at least half its wind farms offshore, the EWEA reports that only 2 per cent of wind-generating capacity in Europe is offshore and this is unlikely to rise significantly.
Gearoid Lane, director of gas and power procurement at Centrica, the UK's largest offshore wind developer, says that for each MW of capacity built in the UK, the company loses £300,000. So with a 300MW plant, for example, the developer faces a £90m funding shortfall. "This makes the economics quite challenging for companies like ours."
In 2001, in the first phase of the Government's planned development of offshore wind power, it released licences for 13 sites to generate a total of 1,500MW. Of these projects, three are in operation, one is being built and two have been put on hold indefinitely because they are no longer economically viable. Of the seven projects remaining, all three developers that returned calls to the IoS last week said they would not be in operation until 2008 at the earliest - two years later than originally envisaged.
The prospects for the much larger second round of projects, slated to deliver between 5,400MW and 7,200MW, are worse still, although they are at a much earlier stage. Once all the planning consents have been received, over the next 12 months, developers will have to decide whether to go ahead, and the signs do not look encouraging.
Alastair Gill, development manager for "npower renewables", part of Germany's RWE, says: "We are seeing other companies put projects on hold because they can't make the economics work. I cannot say we would definitely go ahead with round two without more government support."
Mr Farrier at E.ON adds: "The hope was that two or three of the first-round projects would be constructed every year. But we are only managing one per year. It's difficult to see how round two can happen under current market conditions."
Most of the wind farm developers are global players and so can choose where to invest, and Mr Gill at npower says it is getting harder to secure backing for UK renewable projects. In Germany and Portugal, for example, there is more certainty because projects can sell their electricity on long-term contracts guaranteed by the government. In the UK, developers must rely on renewable obligation certificates (ROCs), which electricity suppliers have to buy on the market if they miss their renewable targets. The proceeds from the sale of ROCs are distributed among the developers.
Simon Currie, energy finance specialist at law firm Norton Rose, says: "Has this market-based incentive delivered the hoped-for rapid utilisation of abundant offshore wind resources? The answer is clearly no." His view is shared by most developers.
Progress has been made. The capacity of installed wind farms in the UK doubled in the two years to the end of 2005, and other technologies like clean coal are being developed (npower announced last week that it plans to build a plant in Tilbury). But the experiences of wind farms do not inspire confidence in the next set of promises that the Government will make in its Energy Review.
Earlier this month, over 300 company executives, consultants and advisers gathered at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre in Westminster for the annual offshore conference of the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA). Delegates say the mood was not as upbeat as in previous years. During coffee breaks, wind farm developers cornered turbine manufacturers to ask them when supply problems would be eased and the promised, more powerful models introduced. Talking among themselves, the developers agreed that many of the larger projects were no longer viable without more government support.
Offshore wind, like much of the policy on renewables trumpeted in the Energy White Paper three years ago, is floundering. Onshore wind isn't doing much better. Both are central to the Government meeting its targets for renewables.
The current energy minister, Malcolm Wicks (who writes below), is the third since the last review. He is preparing to start drafting the latest Energy White Paper after submissions to the consultation closed on Friday. Before he decides whether to sanction the building of more nuclear reactors, the Government is being warned that its last favoured technology, wind power, is in trouble.
At the end of 2005, according to the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), the farms installed in the UK generated just over 1,300 megawatts (MW) of electricity, the vast majority produced onshore. That's enough to power a city slightly larger than Birmingham and amounts to around 1.6 per cent of the UK's total generating capacity. The total contribution from renewable sources is just under 4 per cent, the rest mostly made up from old hydro projects in Scotland.
To get anywhere near the Government's target of generating a 10th of the UK's electricity from renewable sources like wind by 2010, rising to a fifth by 2020, hundreds of wind farms need to be built. With many of the most practical onshore sites already taken, much of the new capacity will have to come from offshore farms.
Under current conditions, this is unlikely to happen, say developers surveyed by The Independent on Sunday. Rather than becoming cheaper with experience and economies of scale, as the industry and Government had hoped, building offshore wind farms has got more expensive, says Dave Farrier, head of development for UK renewables at the German-owned energy giant E.ON.
In the past two years, the cost of building offshore farms has increased from around £1.2m per MW to £1.6m - almost twice as expensive as onshore projects. The soaring cost of steel, and the demand from Asia and the US for wind farms, have pushed up the price of turbines and limited the availability of the equipment needed to install them. Turbine makers like General Electric and Danish firm Vestas are concentrating on the much larger, and more proven, global market for onshore farms. Indeed, while the UK is planning to build at least half its wind farms offshore, the EWEA reports that only 2 per cent of wind-generating capacity in Europe is offshore and this is unlikely to rise significantly.
Gearoid Lane, director of gas and power procurement at Centrica, the UK's largest offshore wind developer, says that for each MW of capacity built in the UK, the company loses £300,000. So with a 300MW plant, for example, the developer faces a £90m funding shortfall. "This makes the economics quite challenging for companies like ours."
In 2001, in the first phase of the Government's planned development of offshore wind power, it released licences for 13 sites to generate a total of 1,500MW. Of these projects, three are in operation, one is being built and two have been put on hold indefinitely because they are no longer economically viable. Of the seven projects remaining, all three developers that returned calls to the IoS last week said they would not be in operation until 2008 at the earliest - two years later than originally envisaged.
The prospects for the much larger second round of projects, slated to deliver between 5,400MW and 7,200MW, are worse still, although they are at a much earlier stage. Once all the planning consents have been received, over the next 12 months, developers will have to decide whether to go ahead, and the signs do not look encouraging.
Alastair Gill, development manager for "npower renewables", part of Germany's RWE, says: "We are seeing other companies put projects on hold because they can't make the economics work. I cannot say we would definitely go ahead with round two without more government support."
Mr Farrier at E.ON adds: "The hope was that two or three of the first-round projects would be constructed every year. But we are only managing one per year. It's difficult to see how round two can happen under current market conditions."
Most of the wind farm developers are global players and so can choose where to invest, and Mr Gill at npower says it is getting harder to secure backing for UK renewable projects. In Germany and Portugal, for example, there is more certainty because projects can sell their electricity on long-term contracts guaranteed by the government. In the UK, developers must rely on renewable obligation certificates (ROCs), which electricity suppliers have to buy on the market if they miss their renewable targets. The proceeds from the sale of ROCs are distributed among the developers.
Simon Currie, energy finance specialist at law firm Norton Rose, says: "Has this market-based incentive delivered the hoped-for rapid utilisation of abundant offshore wind resources? The answer is clearly no." His view is shared by most developers.
Progress has been made. The capacity of installed wind farms in the UK doubled in the two years to the end of 2005, and other technologies like clean coal are being developed (npower announced last week that it plans to build a plant in Tilbury). But the experiences of wind farms do not inspire confidence in the next set of promises that the Government will make in its Energy Review.
By KEVIN DENNEHY and DAVID SCHOETZ STAFF WRITERS
Foes of the proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm say British research on wind turbines interfering with radar raises grave doubts about the Cape project.
RelatedFor more on the proposed offshore wind farm projects, see our special resources site.
The U.S. Department of Defense is investigating whether wind turbines affect military radar. That research, due to be reported to Congress in May, has included consultation with military leaders from Great Britain, where large wind farms already exist and recent studies suggest turbines can interfere with military and maritime radar.
Studies conducted by the British Ministry of Defence in 2005 and obtained by the Times concluded turbine blades can produce ''hole(s) in detection'' in air defense radar systems, sometimes causing aircraft to become obscured from view. While British researchers are trying to develop computer software to reduce the turbines' impact on radar, the technology currently does not exist.
U.S. military officials have said little about their research, but the federal government recently froze a permit for a wind park in southeastern Wisconsin until the Air Force is sure turbines won't interfere with a nearby radar station.
U.S. Rep. William Delahunt was briefed this month by Pentagon officials on the radar issue and said available evidence has reaffirmed his national security concerns over Cape Wind Associates' proposed wind farm.
''They're losing airplanes from radar (in Britain),'' said Delahunt, the Cape's congressman and a Cape Wind opponent. ''These are unanswered issues and they can't be dismissed.
''I know they haven't been answered,'' he added, ''because I've been told by the Department of Defense.''
The Quincy Democrat has asked the Committee on Homeland Security to investigate how Cape Wind's project would affect radar, calling it a potential threat to the PAVE PAWS radar station in Sagamore, as well as civilian radar.
130 turbines planned
Delahunt said he has sent documentation on his concerns to numerous other congressional committees. Recipients include a conference committee debating a Coast Guard bill that would ban wind turbines within 1½ miles of shipping and ferry lanes - mainly because of maritime radar concerns. If approved, that bill would likely kill the Cape Wind proposal, an ambitious plan to build 130 417-foot turbines on Nantucket Sound.
While Cape Wind officials are following the Pentagon study closely, spokesman Mark Rodgers said they remain confident radar technology will be developed to address any interference concerns.
''For those wind farms where they are finding (radar) is a problem,'' he said, ''I'm sure there will be technology to address those concerns.''
Michael Hay, a renewable energy specialist for the British Wind Energy Association, said the industry group will resume tests with the British military into new technologies in May. ''It seems these problems can be overcome, not through changing of the wind projects, but an upgrading of the radar equipment,'' he said. ''It looks like something we can solve without any major costs.''
But Cliff Carroll, a Cape Wind opponent, said the technology doesn't exist. And that, he said, should be a concern not just for the military, but for those who rely on the three regional airports that surround Nantucket Sound.
For more than a year, Carroll, a co-founder of windstop.org, has pushed federal officials to look at the British radar experience. Now, he predicts, the radar issue will sink the Cape Wind project.
''If you go by the UK standard, this thing never would have gotten off the drawing board,'' he said. ''It's the wrong place. ... It's toast.''
While Carroll's prediction remains to be seen, U.S. military officials are certainly paying closer attention to wind projects - onshore and offshore.
Earlier this year, a panel of defense and Homeland Security agencies started looking into the effects of modern windmills on military readiness. The study was required as part of the 2006 Defense Authorization Act, and includes representatives from the Air Force, Army, Navy, Missile Defense Agency and U.S. Northern Command.
Defense leaders are saying little about the study. ''Until this report is submitted to Congress, it would be premature to talk about specifics of what the team is discussing,'' said Maj. Susan Idziak, an Air Force spokeswoman.
Cape Wind officials say the company has already received approvals from both the Federal Aviation Administration and the Air Force.
In particular, Rodgers cited a 2004 FAA letter that affirmed ''no hazard'' to aviation, as well as a 2004 Air Force letter that said the Nantucket Sound project would pose ''no threat to the operation of the PAVE PAWS radar.''
Risk cited in Wisconsin
''As far as we're concerned,'' Rodgers said, ''this has been looked at by the FAA.''
Earlier this month, the FAA notified a Chicago developer that a plan to build 133 turbines in Wisconsin may pose a ''presumed hazard'' to air traffic and the nearby Horicon military radar station.
''Therefore, the operational impact on the Air Force mission of the proposed wind farm development can't be fully assessed at this time,'' Fred Souchet, an FAA specialist, wrote to Forward Energy Center, the project's developer.
Rodgers said the Cape and Wisconsin projects cannot be compared because of different geographical positions relative to nearby military radar.
The Wisconsin project is within the ''sight-line'' of the military radar system - meaning radar beams would strike turbines directly without topographical interference such as hills.
The main beam of the Air Force radar station in Sagamore, however, would shoot above the line of turbines, Rodgers said.
Kevin Dennehy can be reached at kdennehy@capecodonline.com. David Schoetz can be reached at dschoetz@capecodonline.com.
WINDSTOP WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU ALL FOR THE THOUSANDS OF CALLS AND LETTERS OVER THE PAST FEW WEEKS. WASHINGTON HAS FINALLY LISTENED TO OUR NAVIGATION CONCERNS.
Anti-Cape Wind clause OK'd
By KEVIN DENNEHY and DAVID SCHOETZ STAFF WRITERS
Cape Wind Associates' five-year bid to build the nation's first offshore wind farm on Nantucket Sound was dealt a potentially crippling blow yesterday when a congressional panel endorsed a policy that would allow the Bay State governor to veto the project.
After weeks of debate, a closed-door conference committee approved language that targets the Cape Wind proposal specifically, sources said.
The provision, pushed by Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, will be part of an $8.7 billion Coast Guard reauthorization bill that must be approved by the House and Senate. The language doesn't preclude a wind farm anywhere else in the United States.
For Cape Wind, the news is particularly bitter since Gov. Mitt Romney opposes the proposal, as do most of the gubernatorial candidates vying to succeed him in the fall.
Cape Wind President Jim Gordon, who first floated the Nantucket Sound plan in 2001, called the congressional maneuver an ''egregious abuse of process.'' In a written statement, Gordon said he would push for Congress to strip the site-specific language from the bill.
''By arbitrarily legislating a new barrier on a single project, solely because of local opposition,'' Gordon said, ''this provision will impede the development of offshore renewable energy throughout the country.''
A Cape Wind spokesman would not say whether the company is contemplating legal action.
It was unclear last night whether the new provision would be in effect before Romney's term ends in January. Among those campaigning for Romney's job, only Democrat Deval Patrick has endorsed the Cape Wind proposal.
An impasse apparently was broken yesterday when Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Oregon, a member of the conference who sources say initially opposed the amendment, changed his position. The shift gave the amendment the majority support it needed.
As of yesterday, the House Rules Committee had not seen the Coast Guard conference report. Once it is in the hands of the rules panel, there will be little opportunity for Congress to alter the language, said Jo Maney, a committee spokeswoman.
''The conference report represents the final agreement,'' Maney said. ''It's unamendable.''
Congress will be in recess April 10-21.
Early resistance
From its earliest days, the Cape Wind plan to build 130 turbines in Nantucket Sound's shallow waters met stiff resistance.
While supporters call the project a chance to provide clean energy on a large scale, opponents say Nantucket Sound is the wrong place for a wind farm. Among the powerful foes are Romney, U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, and U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, the Cape's Democratic congressman.
In addition to Cape Wind's political detractors, well-financed opponents have spent millions of dollars fighting the project, including an aggressive lobbying effort on Capitol Hill.
The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, whose leaders could not be reached for comment last night, has spent more than $840,000 alone on lobbyists through the first half of 2005. Bill Koch, the group's co-chairman and an Osterville homeowner, has paid his own lobbyists through his energy conglomerate, the Oxbow Group.
In 2004, the lobbying efforts nearly yielded a moratorium on offshore wind projects. However, the legislative bid pushed by U.S. Sen. John Warner, R-Va., failed at the 11th hour.
Lawmakers in Washington renewed their efforts to kill the project in December, when U.S. Rep. Don Young, the powerful Alaskan Republican who chairs the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, introduced language in the Coast Guard bill that would ban turbines within 1½ miles of shipping and ferry lanes.
Changing language
The so-called Young amendment met opposition among the Senate conferees.
Likewise, compromise language proposed by fellow Alaskan Stevens targeting the Nantucket Sound project divided the conference, Washington sources said.
Two ranking members of the Senate Energy Committee stated their opposition to the bill yesterday.
U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said a ''special-interest provision to veto a single project'' would make a mockery of ongoing discussions on renewable energy and lobbying reform.
Kevin Dennehy can be reached at kdennehy@capecodonline.com. David Schoetz can be reached at dschoetz@capecodonline.com.
(Published: April 7, 2006)
WATCH CAPE WIND DEBATE WINDSTOP
BE SURE TO WATCH THE NECN NEWSNIGHT with MR. JIM BRAUDE
WHEN MR. JIM GORDAN of CAPE WIND and MR. CLIFF CARROLL, ONE OF THE CO-FOUNDERS OF WINDSTOP DEBATE THE MERITS OFHR 889 COAST GUARD MARITIME and TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 2005
Almost 3,000,000 Passengers a year travel the narrow shipping lanes of Nantucket Sound
PLEASE SIGN THE ONLINE PETITION SHOWING YOUR STRONG SUPPORT OF CONGRESSMAN YOUNG'S USCG AMENDMENT MANDATING THAT WIND FARMS MUST BE AT LEAST 1.5 MILES FROM SHIPPING AND FERRY ROUTES BECAUSE OF RADAR AND COLLISION ISSUES RAISED. IT WILL ONLY TAKE ONE MINUTE.
ALSO BE SURE TO READ THE STRONG LETTERS OF SUPPORT BELOW FROM THE FISHERMEN AND SHIPPING COMPANIES THAT KNOW FIRST HAND THE TRUE RISKS OF NAVIGATING NANTUCKET SOUND EVERYDAY.
WHAT IS SO CLEAN ABOUT 41,000 GALLONS OF OIL IN A 10 STORY TRANSFORMER IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR FISHING GROUNDS JUST OFF OUR VIRGIN BEACHES? THERE IS ONE OR MORE TRANSFORMER FIRES IN THE US. EVERYDAY.
GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY HAS STATED
'I will oppose the wind farm with every legal means available to me because there is no amount of study that will convince me that a wind farm must be tested on Nantucket Sound before we see it anywhere else on the East Coast...'' he said in November 2004. ''If wind is going to be a critical and valuable source of power for our nation, and I believe it is, then we are going to have a lot of wind farms. And if we are going to have lots of them, let's build the first one somewhere that is not as economically, environmentally and visually sensitive as this place. Why build the first one in a national treasure?''
As the Great Theodore Roosevelt said in 1903:
''Here is your country. Cherish these natural wonders, cherish the natural resources, cherish the history and romance as a sacred heritage, for your children and your children's children. Do not let selfish men or greedy interests skin your country of its beauty, its riches or its romance.''
NANTUCKET SOUND, YOUR BEACH, CAN NOT DEFEND HERSELF.
THE END OF CAPE WIND'S CAPE SPIN IS NEAR.
Please take a look at the 2 video links below
The first link is an actual VIDEO of a wind turbine tower being pile driven in Horns Rev, Denmark. This is what our tourist, fisherman and rare sea life will be exposed to. Some reports show that this sound can travel up to 10 miles underwater. VIDEO http://www.windstop.org/images/Horns_Rev.mpg
The second link shows what happens to a "MINERAL OIL FILLED' transformer when it over heats. This golf course transformer is about 1/50 the size of Cape Winds 40,000 gallon, 10 story transformer which will be just off our virgin beaches in the middle of our prime fishing grounds.
CLICK ON THE PHOTOS OF YOUR BEACH BELOW TO SEE HOW BADLY OUR PRISTINE VIEWS WILL BE PERMANENTLY DEVASTATED.
THE FUTURE OF NAVIGATING NANTUCKET SOUND ?? READ ABOUT LOUIS GUARNACCIAS PAINTING AT http://www.ack.net/965iminthisissuestory.html
No shortage of wind farm spin
By KEVIN DENNEHY and DAVID SCHOETZ STAFF WRITERS
During five years of debate over the Nantucket Sound wind farm, there have been arguments about cost benefits and national security, bird deaths and spoiled waterfront views.
But when a panel of congressmen meets on Capitol Hill as soon as this week to discuss legislation that could kill the wind farm, the fate of the project may hinge on a single question: Would the turbines threaten navigation on the Sound?
Like most debate swirling around Cape Wind's 130-turbine proposal, the impact of the project on navigation depends mainly on whom you ask. With no precedent in the United States, even those who ply these waters for a living disagree.
Supporters of a restriction proposed by U.S. Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, that would ban turbines within 1½ miles of shipping lanes include the two largest ferry service providers on the Cape and Islands: the Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority and Hy-Line Cruises.
The two operators, which carry 3 million passengers a year on routes straddling the project's proposed footprint, predict turbines on Nantucket Sound would become dangerous obstacles and disrupt marine radar.
''The area is very congested at times with commercial and recreational traffic,'' Wayne Lamson, Steamship Authority general manager, wrote to House and Senate conferees last week. ''With the wind farm as currently proposed ... it has the potential for creating a significant hazard to safe navigation for our vessels and other users of the waterways.''
BE SURE TO READ THE UK COAST GUARD REPORTS PROVIDED ABOVE
Alaska lawmaker joins Cape wind farm fray
By KEVIN DENNEHY
and DAVID SCHOETZ STAFF WRITERS
WASHINGTON - Inside the Beltway, he's made his name as a champion for tapping oil resources in his own state - and for telling the federal government to butt out.
U.S. Rep. Don Young
Alaska's congressman since 1973 and third-ranking Republican member of the House.
Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Backs proposal to ban wind farms within 11/2 miles of shipping or ferry lanes.
In fact, during three decades in Washington, U.S. Rep. Don Young has routinely upbraided ''outsiders'' who think they know what's good for Alaska.
But now it's Young who has inserted a backdoor amendment to an $8.7 billion Coast Guard bill that could kill the Nantucket Sound wind farm.
In the coming weeks, a conference committee of House and Senate leaders will negotiate details of the legislation that, according to sources on both sides of the issue, would directly affect Cape Wind Associates' plan to build 130 420-foot turbines on the sound.
Specifically, turbines would be banned within 1½ miles of shipping and ferry lanes - a provision supporters say was driven by an analysis done by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency of the United Kingdom.
Opponents of the Cape wind farm call Young's move a logical public safety policy. Advocates call it misguided and - since it surfaced inside a closed-door conference committee - undemocratic.
But why Young?
RelatedFor more on the proposed offshore wind farm projects, see our special resources site.
''Everyone is calling it the Young amendment, (but) what does he care?'' said Karen Wayland, legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. ''He's got to be carrying the water for someone.''
The fact is, the millions of lobbying dollars being spent on both sides of the debate may determine whether the project lives or dies - perhaps inside a Capitol Hill back room.
Young has not stated publicly why he supports the amendment, and he refused numerous requests for an interview.
For wind farm opponents, the Alaska Republican was a logical target to affect legislation that deals with marine navigation.
As chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the 33-year congressman is one of Washington's more influential lawmakers.
Charles Vinick, CEO of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, said his group has spent considerable time meeting with the people who have a say in the Cape wind farm's fate: the Coast Guard, the Department of Interior and members of Congress.
He said since Young's committee deals with the Coast Guard, why not call him?
One of the top-paid lobbyists hired by the Alliance is Guy Martin, a former Washington counsel for the state of Alaska who describes himself as a longtime friend of Young's.
Martin, who worked in offshore leasing issues and coastal zoning, also helped win federal support for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline - a project Young calls the ''single most important achievement'' of his career.
Vinick said he called Young last year and asked for a meeting.
''He's not easy to get time with,'' Vinick said. ''He's in high demand.''
In the few moments he got with the Alaskan, Vinick stressed navigational safety. Young, a former tug boat captain, may have been sympathetic.
''He only said,'' Vinick recalled, ''this is an area where he 'knows there are risks.' ''
Capital efforts
In Washington, both sides of the Cape Wind debate are spending time and capital, whether to push the project along or kill it dead.
Through the first half of 2005, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound had paid more than $840,000 to four lobbying firms.
Cape Wind Associates, meanwhile, spent $340,000 on two lobbying shops, including the influential firm Piper Rudnick, which employs former House Majority Leader Dick Armey.
For Cape Wind, much of their money has been spent defending against legislative maneuvers like Young's, said spokesman Mark Rodgers.
The developer has also invested time trying to influence the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which, for the first time, created a federal framework for leasing land on the outer continental shelf for wind farms.
For the Alliance, a well-financed group trying to kill the project, the attention has helped spur legislative efforts to hamstring the Nantucket Sound project.
Some powerful D.C. players oppose the project, including U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., a Hyannisport homeowner whose office said it knows little about the Young amendment.
There's also U.S. Sen. John Warner, a Virginia Republican who has family on the Cape and who, in 2004, tried to insert language into a Defense bill that would have shelved the Cape Wind project.
It almost worked. ''I came within a millimeter of getting my statute of a year's moratorium through,'' Warner told a Senate committee last year.
''I won't tell you what happened in the wee hours of the morning. But one individual was able to stop it in (the House)... I'm not complaining. I've done it myself.''
Later, Warner and U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican and Nantucket property owner, tried to exempt certain wind farms - Cape Wind would have been one - from receiving a crucial federal tax subsidy.
Then, in the fall, Young's committee considered making any offshore wind project subject to review by the commandant of the Coast Guard.
'Ad hoc' attempts
U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, the Cape's congressman and another Cape Wind opponent, said whatever happens with the project, the issue will end up in the courts.
In the meantime, he said lawmakers keep making ''ad hoc'' attempts to stop the project because there isn't an ocean policy on the books.
''Whatever happens is going to be met with disappointment on one side,'' he said. ''That's just the way it is.
''But it never should have come to this point. ... We're doing these things on an ad hoc basis. What we ought to do is zone the ocean.''
Until then, Young's conference committee could shape the fate of the Cape project as part of the Coast Guard authorization bill.
Young, Alaska's lone congressman since 1973, has a reputation for being brash and unpredictable. The heads and furs of animals cover the walls of his D.C. offices, and a giant portrait of the chairman against a mountainous backdrop looms on a wall in his committee hearing room.
The third-ranking Republican in the House, he's known for protecting Alaskan interests - and for delivering huge dollars to local projects.
Last fall, he drew fire even from within his own party for stuffing a pair of bridges - at a cost of more than $450 million - into a transportation bill.
As for the Coast Guard bill, Young could not be reached for comment despite numerous attempts and a visit to his capitol offices. Steve Hansen, a Young spokesman, offered few details on the amendment because it is still under discussion. But he did say the conference sought comments on the policy from the Coast Guard and the Department of Energy.
''Identified as one of the primary concerns,'' he said, ''is the navigational safety issue.''
''We had hoped the bill would have passed last year,'' Hansen added. ''We're still having meetings on a regular basis on it.''
U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., is a member of the Senate Transportation committee, but not on the conference committee, his state director Jon Jennings said.
As a member of the committee of jurisdiction, however, Kerry does have the ability to express concerns, according to Jennings.
But Kerry, who has not expressed a position on the Cape Wind project in general, likewise hasn't stated a position on this amendment.
''He does not have any direct input since he's not a conferee,'' Jennings said. ''But he will certainly let the conferees know his feelings one way or another if he decides which way he feels about this particular provision.''
Kevin Dennehy can be reached at kdennehy@capecodonline.com. David Schoetz can be reached at dschoetz@capecodonline.com.
(Published: February 19, 2006)
Turbine partisans put spin on proposed ban
By KEVIN DENNEHY
and DAVID SCHOETZ STAFF WRITERS
A provision tucked into a massive Coast Guard authorization bill could stop the Cape Wind debate in its tracks.
If approved, the amendment being considered by a conference committee would ban wind turbines within 1½ miles of shipping and ferry lanes.
On Nantucket Sound, the footprint of the proposed 130-turbine offshore wind farm lies well within that range - in fact, just a mile from Cape and Island ferry routes.
David Scudder, a vice-president for Hy-Line Cruises, called the proposed zoning common sense policy since the turbines could push recreational boats into the path of ferry traffic - especially in foul weather.
''There's always a challenge in navigation when it's foggy,'' he said. ''There's a multitude of vessels out there, and this will just add another target.''
Of course, with no other offshore wind farms in the United States, and no clear federal guidelines, the appropriateness of the policy is open to interpretation.
Supporters of the amendment say building large turbines within 1½ miles of shipping routes could threaten navigation as well as Coast Guard radar. And they point to ongoing analysis by the United Kingdom's Maritime and Coastguard Agency as evidence.
But Cape Wind proponents insist the experience of offshore wind farms in Europe - particularly in Denmark - has yielded no evidence that turbines are unsafe anywhere closer than a mile to shipping.
And, proponents say, there's more at stake than just the Nantucket Sound proposal. ''Clearly, if this amendment passes, it will not only stop the Cape Wind project,'' said Jim Gordon, president of Cape Wind. ''But it will harm the emergence of the wind industry in America.''
On Jan. 30, a coalition of environmental groups sent a letter urging the congressional conferees to scrap the amendment, calling the buffer ''extreme and unnecessary.'' They say the Energy Policy Act signed last summer by President Bush already charged federal agencies to develop ''necessary regulations'' about the effects of offshore wind projects. That framework, they say, has not yet been completed and should not be decided by lawmakers.
''The agency responsible for navigational safety, the U.S. Coast Guard, should be given the opportunity to properly study this issue...without having the outcome prejudged,'' reads the letter, signed by numerous groups, including Cape and Islands Self-Reliance, Clean Power Now, Greenpeace and the Conservation Law Foundation.
They also cite experiences in Denmark, where the Middlegrunden wind farm off Copenhagen stands closer than one-third of a mile to a busy shipping lane but has produced no problems since it was built in 2001.
But Charles Vinick, the CEO of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound who went to Washington to lobby for the amendment, also points to a European example.
According to a draft guideline, the British Coast Guard has suggested that wind farms greater than 2 nautical miles from a shipping lane are ''tolerable.'' But inside 1½ miles, the agency reports, the projects interfere with radar and require ''very close and critical scrutiny.''
''They are way ahead of us,'' Vinick said of the English. ''And have more projects in the pipeline.''
Kevin Dennehy can be reached at kdennehy@capecodonline.com. David Schoetz can be reached at dschoetz@capecodonline.com.
A 24 SQUARE MILE STEEL FOREST & FOG!!!!!
A BOAT AND PLANES WORSE NIGHTMARE
"Not only have private recreational vessels had issues in the fog this summer, but even the Hy-Line’s passenger ferries have had trouble coping with the conditions. On July 5, the Hy-Line’s fast ferry Grey Lady and the conventional ferry Point Gammon collided bow to bow in thick fog in Nantucket Harbor. Neither vessel sustained significant damage and there were no injuries to any of the passengers, but the incident illustrated the fact that even with the use of radar and radio communication, navigating through the fog can be risky and dangerous."
Feb 7, 2006
NANTUCKET INQUIRER & MIRROR
FOCUS: Fog Happens Misty mornings – and afternoons – make for grayest summer in years
By Jason Graziadei
I&M Staff Writer
Both year-round and summer residents know that dealing with fog is a fact of life on Nantucket. It’s no secret that the island has more than its fair share of foggy weather.
But this summer has already seen more foggy days than any in recent memory. And not only does that put a dent in the number of beach days that can be enjoyed, but the consistent, thick fog that has enveloped the island this summer has wreaked havoc both at sea and in the air.
Like death and taxes, fog has been nearly a guarantee this summer, and for those people responsible for the safety of Nantucket’s airspace and waterways, it has not been easy.
Takeoffs and landings at Nantucket Memorial Airport are down 30 percent compared to this time last year. The Coast Guard and Nantucket harbormaster received over 40 distress calls from boats lost in the fog on the Fourth of July alone. And the summer fog has also hampered other water-dependent businesses such as fishing charters and whale watches.
“The fog is making it hard on everyone,” said Harbormaster Dave Fronzuto. “It just seems like it’s been here every night for a month. It’s definitely been worse for a longer period of time than I can remember. We’ve had to escort a lot of boats lost in the fog, or boats run aground in the fog, literally every night.”
While Nantucket’s location, more than 20 miles out at sea and surrounded by water, is one of the causes for the heavy fog that regularly plagues the island, a nearly constant southwest wind this summer, along with cooler-than-normal water temperatures, has produced conditions perfect for fog. Essentially, fog is a cloud that is based on the ground or over the water, and it forms when water vapor in the air cools to the dew point and condenses into minute, visible droplets of water suspended in the air. Technically, fog exists when visibility drops below one kilometer.
“Typically, the reason we see fog in the summertime is that we have a prevailing southwest wind which brings a lot of humidity and it’s that warm air going over the cooler ocean water that causes fog,” said meteorologist Joe Dellicarpini of the National Weather Service in Taunton, Mass. “There’s so much water around Nantucket, it tends to be thicker and it’s harder for the fog to burn off in the sun. But we’ve been stuck in the same weather pattern for a few weeks and it’s been a little more persistent in the last month than we typically see.”
Fog on Nantucket reaches its peak in the late spring to mid-summer, with an average of 14 days with fog in July and 10 days with fog in August. Historically, the island has been riddled with fog-related disasters at sea. In 1909, the passenger liner Republic collided with the steamship Florida in thick fog southwest of the island, sinking the Republic. In 1934, the Nantucket lightship was rammed and sunk by the White Star liner Olympia – sister ship of the Titanic – in another fog-caused accident, killing seven of the lightship’s crew. And in the most famous fog-related wreck near Nantucket, the Italian passenger liner Andrea Doria collided bow to bow with the Swedish American liner Stockholm in 1956 and later sank after nearly all of its passengers had been rescued.
In Nantucket Harbor, boats without the use of radar and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) have had a difficult time navigating in the fog this summer, with many vessels simply getting lost or actually running aground in different parts of the harbor. Both Fronzuto and Coast Guard Senior Chief Sheila Lucey are quick to mention the Fourth of July as the most difficult evening of the summer so far.
With hundreds of boats out on the water waiting for the fireworks to begin, a thick fog smothered the island, postponing the festivities and leaving the boaters with little or no visibility. In the two-hour period that followed, more than 40 distress calls poured into the Coast Guard and Marine Department requesting assistance.
“There was about two hours of mayhem when it was really thick,” Lucey said. “That night we had over 42 calls for assistance from people lost in the fog, put aground, disoriented and scared. The first thing we do is ask them if they are anchored, if they have life jackets on, and then once we get them stationary, figure out where they left from, what was their course, destination and speed. We also have a direction finder that we can use to get a line of direction from where they’re talking and where they are from the station. That gives a good idea of where to start looking.”
While the Coast Guard was getting inundated with calls, Fronzuto and the Marine Department were assisting with the fireworks on the barge, but quickly realized they were also getting swamped with distress calls.
“We had so many incidences that night,” Fronzuto said. “We were trying to run around in the fog, in the dark, trying to rescue people, but we did it. There was no property damage and no injuries, which was beautiful.”
Not only have private recreational vessels had issues in the fog this summer, but even the Hy-Line’s passenger ferries have had trouble coping with the conditions. On July 5, the Hy-Line’s fast ferry Grey Lady and the conventional ferry Point Gammon collided bow to bow in thick fog in Nantucket Harbor. Neither vessel sustained significant damage and there were no injuries to any of the passengers, but the incident illustrated the fact that even with the use of radar and radio communication, navigating through the fog can be risky and dangerous.
Hy-Line Vice President Murray Scudder said that each vessel had the other on its radar as its primary way of locating the other, and also said the vessels were in radio contact. But Scudder said the thick fog obscured each vessel from the other as well as the reference points around the harbor, and the boats collided despite traveling at the slowest possible speed, four knots, with their engines engaged.
At Nantucket Memorial Airport, the summer fog has caused delays, cancellations and has cut down the airport’s operations by 30 percent. More than 8,000 scheduled operations have been canceled because of weather conditions, specifically fog, that reduce the ceiling, or the height above the ground that is visible, that pilots need to land an aircraft.
“It’s been one of the worst Julys in memory,” said Airport Manager Al Peterson. “Our traffic is off 30 percent, primarily because of the weather. This has been a long siege of really bad weather.”
For planes to land at the airport, they need a 200-foot ceiling with a runway visual range (RVR) of 1,800 to 2,400 feet, depending on whether the centerline lights on the main runway, 6/24, are functional. Those lights, however, have been the last portion of the runway improvements to be completed, so the airport has been required to have an RVR of 2,400 feet for most of the summer, further reducing the window that planes have to land on the island.
“I’ve talked with some of the pilots and controllers and they don’t remember it being this foggy in a long time,” said Patrick Topham, the airport’s control tower manager. “Unfortunately, the airport is getting a bad rap and getting some of the blame because the lights weren’t fixed. But even if they were, we’d still have been below the minimums.”
For people like Blair Perkins, who runs the whale watch operation Shearwater Excursions, and Karsten Reinemo, the captain of Topspin Sport Fishing, the foggy weather has affected business in a variety of ways, from safety to the bottom line.
Perkins has had to cancel at least 16 voyages this summer due to fog, and when he has been able to make the trip out to sea, spotting whales has been difficult with the poor visibility.
“We’ve definitely had more fog than in the last couple years,” Perkins said. “We’re a good four to five degrees below normal this year (for water temperature) and with extremely high dew points, it’s easy for fog to form. It impacts my business quite a bit. I’ve lost 16 days and the fog can be very fatiguing just navigating in it.”
Perkins added that Nantucket has had the type of humidity and dew points this summer that are more common in the Carolinas than the Northeast.
For Reinemo, whose boat is equipped with radar and GPS, the issue has not been getting lost, but rather avoiding other boaters who don’t have the proper equipment and don’t see him coming.
“We have had to avoid a lot of people this year, they don’t even know we’re there,” Reinemo said. “It’s dangerous for people who aren’t used to fog, the weekend boater. Radar is the only device that tells you when something’s coming at you, but very few people have radar because it’s too expensive.”
Over the past week, the fog has not been as prevalent as it was earlier in the summer, but those who were affected by the pea-soup conditions will remember the months of June and July well into the off-season.
1/30/06- READ THE MOST RECENT PROOF OF THE RADAR INTERFERENCE WHICH WILL ENDANGER THE 400,000 FLIGHTS A YEAR OVER NANTUCKET SOUND. CAPE WIND and THE FAA ARE IGNORING THE APPEAL AND DANGER TO OUR 3 AIRPORTS.
A CONTROVERSIAL windfarm planned for one of Scotland's most scenic areas is among developments that pose a potential risk to aircraft safety, aviation chiefs have warned.
More than 40 wind turbines over 400ft tall are planned for Lochluichart Estate, near Garve, in the Highlands, making them among the tallest anywhere in the UK. They will be visible from a series of famous mountain ranges including the Fannichs, Torridon and Strathfarrar.
Planes, including military jets, fly as low as 150ft in some exercises around the planned windfarm site although the normal limit for fixed wing aircraft is 250ft. Scotland has several tactical military training areas, including the Highlands and South Lanarkshire.
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has issued written guidance to planning officials due to concern at the height and extent of such developments. Both commercial airline pilots and the Royal Air Force have voiced worries about turbine interference with flight radar.
Donald Northwood, the secretary of Garve and District Community Council, said last night: "Part of our objection to this windfarm application has been that it is a low-flight zone. These turbines will exceed 400ft but RAF Tornados fly at between 150ft and 300ft through Glen Achanalt."
Turbines higher than 300ft must, by law, be fitted with lights so that airline pilots can see them. But the CAA is also concerned that the lack of lights on smaller structures could cause planes to crash through the blades when flying low.
Turbine blades also emit microwave radiation which can interfere with planes' primary radar, secondary surveillance radar and navigation aids. The worry is that a build-up of wind farms could give the appearance of a 'moving object', making air traffic controllers believe there is an unidentified aircraft in its radar. This could have a potentially catastrophic effect if another plane is flying in the same area.
Northwood added: "The implication that microwaves could have an impact on flight safety makes the issue of the windfarm even more vital for us. I am sure that the public will be alarmed to hear this."
The same flight control radar systems are used in helicopters, low-flying private planes, light aircraft and stealth bombers. An RAF spokesman yesterday confirmed that search and rescue helicopters and Tornado jets regularly operate in the Garve area.
He said: "We monitor all aviation developments carefully and when the CAA has concerns we will consider what further action we may want to take."
John Urquhart, who lives one-and-half miles from the proposed windfarm site at Lochluichart, said: "This will be of great concern to the community. It is a sparsely populated area but that is not the point. A risk is a risk."
The £89m project is planned for the Highland estate owned by Hamish Leslie Melville, 61, the managing director of international banking group Credit Suisse First Boston. He is being backed by windfarm developer LZN, which is a combination of Dutch wind farm giant KDE and Savills property consultants. The plans recently attracted controversy when it emerged that Leslie Melville is a former chairman of the National Trust for Scotland (NTS).
A spokesman for the CAA said it took action to warn Scottish councils of flight risks after planning officials recently received an application to extend the Hagshaw Hill windfarm development in Lanarkshire.
The proposal to build a further 20 turbines at the site was agreed last week just days after the biggest wind farm in the UK was switched on in Forth in neighbouring South Lanarkshire.
A spokesman said they would now monitor both ScottishPower sites after lodging their concerns during the consultation process.
He said: "We are concerned that a proliferation of wind farms in any one particular area may potentially result in greater difficulties for aviation than a single development would generate. The physical obstruction caused by a tall structure could be cause for concern as well as the effects that turbines and their blades can have on communications, navigation, radar and surveillance systems."
The spokesman added: "We will look, on a case-by-case basis, at factors such as the proximity of the planned development to airports and airfields, flight paths and radar systems. We will continue to monitor aviation safety in relation to wind farms and take all necessary steps to ensure that safety is maintained to the highest standards."
Around half the planned wind farms for Scotland are in the country's Central Belt.
The independent MSP Margo Macdonald last night demanded a review of the current planning process.
She said: "Do you think that the CAA is trying to tell us something? If the CAA is telling us that wind farms should carry a government health warning, it might have been a better idea to make their fears known before the second wind farm in the Forth area was agreed.
"We must take seriously the possibility that we can have too much of a good thing. With public safety in mind, the growing number of windfarms may soon pass saturation point across the Central Belt.
"I'm raising the matter with the Scottish Executive."
PLEASE NOTE In November of 2004, The Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard and Barnstable Airports filed a formal objection to the placement of 130 Turbines in the middle of the 3 airports flight paths. These concerns were based on recent radar studies conducted by the UK Ministry of Defence. The FAA ignored this appeal. As of this date the FAA has never contacted any of the Airport Managers.
The Air Traffic Controllers Union at Cape Approach stated that "They could not think of a worse place to put these turbines".
NEW- Be sure to read our new section below which has articles from around the world about other wind farm protests.
PLEASE USE THE LINK BELOW TO WATCH THE 8 MINUTE PBS WIND PLANT NEWS HOUR BROADCAST
Please read the comments in our Guest Book which have come in from around the world.
NANTUCKET SOUND IS NOT THE PLACE TO EXPERIMENT WITH A 43 STORY, 24 SQUARE MILE INDUSTRIAL PLANT, WITH A 10 STORY, 41,000 GALLON, OIL FILLED TRANSFORMER IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR FISHING GROUNDS, JUST OFF OUR VIRGIN BEACHES.
Wind cable showdown in doldrums
By KEVIN DENNEHY
Seven months after one part of Cape Wind's project was appealed, a court delay has company officials frustrated.
In May, the state's Energy Facilities Siting Board granted Cape Wind Associates the right to run cables from its proposed wind farm on Nantucket Sound to the shore, a critical step in what has been a years-long review.
Within weeks the project's top critic, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, appealed the decision.
But now, seven months later, the state board has yet to appoint a counsel for its defense, which Cape Wind officials insist has ground the process to a halt.
Siting board officials say the delay of the review rests with the state Supreme Judicial Court, not with them.
Nonetheless, a department official said last week that the board, which reviews all energy projects more than 100 megawatts, will likely get around to it at its next meeting, Jan. 12.
Interestingly, the new chairman at the meeting will be Judith Judson, a Topsfield Republican promoted by Gov. Mitt Romney last week - and one of just two board members to oppose the Cape Wind license last May. Romney is an outspoken opponent of the wind farm.
''It's appalling that all this time has gone by and they have not appointed a counsel,'' said Mark Rodgers, a Cape Wind spokesman. ''This process has been frozen.''
Gail Soares, deputy director of the department, said the board could not appoint a counsel until the attorney general's office confirmed it would not defend the decision, which it usually does.
In this case, Attorney General Thomas Reilly's office decided to not defend the decision because of conflict of interest concerns. Reilly's office testified during the hearing. The attorney general is also an outspoken wind farm opponent.
NEW YORK TIMES
An ILL Wind Off Cape Cod
By ROBERT F. KENNEDY Jr.
Published: December 16, 2005
AS an environmentalist, I support wind power, including wind power on the high seas. I am also involved in siting wind farms in appropriate landscapes, of which there are many. But I do believe that some places should be off limits to any sort of industrial development. I wouldn't build a wind farm in Yosemite National Park. Nor would I build one on Nantucket Sound, which is exactly what the company Energy Management is trying to do with its Cape Wind project.
Environmental groups have been enticed by Cape Wind, but they should be wary of lending support to energy companies that are trying to privatize the commons - in this case 24 square miles of a heavily used waterway. And because offshore wind costs twice as much as gas-fired electricity and significantly more than onshore wind, the project is financially feasible only because the federal and state governments have promised $241 million in subsidies.
Cape Wind's proposal involves construction of 130 giant turbines whose windmill arms will reach 417 feet above the water and be visible for up to 26 miles. These turbines are less than six miles from shore and would be seen from Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. Hundreds of flashing lights to warn airplanes away from the turbines will steal the stars and nighttime views. The noise of the turbines will be audible onshore. A transformer substation rising 100 feet above the sound would house giant helicopter pads and 40,000 gallons of potentially hazardous oil.
According to the Massachusetts Historical Commission, the project will damage the views from 16 historic sites and lighthouses on the cape and nearby islands. The Humane Society estimates the whirling turbines could every year kill thousands of migrating songbirds and sea ducks.
Nantucket Sound is among the most densely traveled boating corridors in the Atlantic. The turbines will be perilously close to the main navigation channels for cargo ships, ferries and fishing boats. The risk of collisions with the towers would increase during the fogs and storms for which the area is famous. That is why the Steamship Authority and Hy-Line Cruises, which transport millions of passengers to and from the cape and islands every year, oppose the project. Thousands of small businesses, including marina owners, hotels, motels, whale watching tours and charter fishing operations will also be hurt. The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston estimates a loss of up to 2,533 jobs because of the loss of tourism - and over a billion dollars to the local economy.
Nantucket Sound is a critical fishing ground for the commercial fishing families of Martha's Vineyard and Cape Cod. Hundreds of fishermen work Horseshoe Shoal, where the Cape Wind project would be built, and make half their annual income from the catch. The risks that their gear will become fouled in the spider web of cables between the 130 towers will largely preclude fishing in the area, destroying family-owned businesses that enrich the palate, economy and culture of Cape Cod.
Many environmental groups support the Cape Wind project, and that's unfortunate because making enemies of fishermen and marina owners is bad environmental strategy in the long run. Cape Cod's traditional-gear commercial fishing families and its recreational anglers and marina owners have all been important allies for environmentalists in our battles for clean water.
There are those who argue that unlike our great Western national parks, Cape Cod is far from pristine, and that Cape Wind's turbines won't be a significant blot. I invite these critics to see the pods of humpback, minke, pilot, finback and right whales off Nantucket, to marvel at the thousands of harbor and gray seals lolling on the bars off Monomoy and Horseshoe Shoal, to chase the dark clouds of terns and shorebirds descending over the thick menhaden schools exploding over acre-sized feeding frenzies of striped bass, bluefish and bonita.
I urge them to come diving on some of the hundreds of historic wrecks in this "graveyard of the Atlantic," and to visit the endless dune-covered beaches of Cape Cod, our fishing villages immersed in history and beauty, or to spend an afternoon netting blue crabs or mucking clams, quahogs and scallops by the bushel on tidal mud flats - some of the reasons my uncle, John F. Kennedy, authorized the creation of the Cape Cod National Seashore in 1961, and why Nantucket Sound is under consideration as a national marine sanctuary, a designation that would prohibit commercial electrical generation.
All of us need periodically to experience wilderness to renew our spirits and reconnect ourselves to the common history of our nation, humanity and to God. The worst trap that environmentalists can fall into is the conviction that the only wilderness worth preserving is in the Rocky Mountains or Alaska. To the contrary, our most important wildernesses are those that are closest to our densest population centers, like Nantucket Sound.
There are many alternatives that would achieve the same benefits as Cape Wind without destroying this national treasure. Deep water technology is rapidly evolving, promising huge bounties of wind energy with fewer environmental and economic consequences. Scotland is preparing to build wind turbines in the Moray Firth more than 12 miles offshore. Germany is considering placing turbines as far as 27 miles off its northern shores.
If Cape Wind were to place its project further offshore, it could build not just 130, but thousands of windmills - where they can make a real difference in the battle against global warming without endangering the birds or impoverishing the experience of millions of tourists and residents and fishing families who rely on the sound's unspoiled bounties.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is an environmental lawyer and professor at Pace University Law School.
CLICK ON THE PICTURES TO VIEW THE FUTURE DESTRUCTION OF YOUR FAVORITE BEACH
Hyannisport
Craigville Beach
Wianno- Osterville
Cotuit
Chappy- Marthas Vineyard
Oak Bluffs- Marthas Vineyard
Nobska Light- Woods Hole
130 TURBINES TO BE PILE DRIVEN!!
BOSTON GLOBE:
Capitol Hill weighing tighter limits on wind farms
Shipping buffer could sink project
By Stephanie Ebbert, Globe Staff | December 9, 2005
In yet another congressional maneuver that could kill a wind farm proposed off Cape Cod, a conference committee is considering language that would prohibit wind turbines within 1.5 miles of shipping and ferry lanes.
The language is being circulated as part of an $8.7 billion Coast Guard authorization bill now in conference committee. If it remains in the final document, it would effectively kill the proposal by Cape Wind Associates to generate power by building 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound.
Mark Rodgers, a spokesman for the project's developer, said the 1.5-mile buffer zone would be unfairly punitive, because oil rigs can be sited within 500 feet of a shipping channel. And he said the prohibition is unnecessary because the Coast Guard already has the authority to decide whether the project is too close for safety.
Cape Wind's proposal to build a wind farm on a 24-square-mile area of Horseshoe Shoal, between the Cape and Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket, is undergoing state and federal review. The turbines would stand within 400 yards of the shipping lane to the south of Horseshoe Shoal and within 1 nautical mile of the ferry route to the east, said Rodgers. A second ferry lane linking Hyannis and the islands could restrict the western side of the project.
''Even if you used the loosest interpretation, you'd be cutting into the shoal from three different directions," Rogers said.
The head of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, which was formed to block the proposed wind farm, said that he has not seen the language but that his organization met with congressional subcommittee staff members this fall and alerted them to similar navigation concerns being raised in the United Kingdom. There, officials are considering whether to limit the proximity of offshore wind turbines to shipping channels because of concerns they could interfere with radar.
''We think it's very important," said Charles Vinick, CEO of the alliance. ''If you look at the Cape Wind installation, it is in a triangle. What you have to remember is that the shipping lane is also the backup for all traffic in the Cape Cod Canal if the canal is shut for any reason. This is not just a minor shipping lane; we have some three million passengers who travel on the ferry routes annually."
Two ferry services on Cape Cod, the Steamship Authority and Hy-Line Cruises, oppose the wind project and have written letters citing concerns that the towers could pose navigational hazards.
The language was added to the Coast Guard authorization bill by US Representative Don Young, said Steven Broderick, a legislative aide to US Representative William D. Delahunt, Democrat of Quincy.
Delahunt opposes the Cape Wind project, but was not involved with the new language, Broderick said.
Young, an Alaska Republican who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the conference committee on the Coast Guard authorization bill, made a separate effort to increase Coast Guard oversight of offshore wind farms in the same bill in September. The House passed the bill with an amendment intended to help the Coast Guard in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, but also included language requiring the Coast Guard commandant to give a written opinion on whether offshore wind farms could interfere with navigation. The Senate did not pass similar language.
Neither a spokeswoman for Young nor his committee's spokesman returned calls for comment.
mulls ban on turbines within
1½ miles of shipping lanes. By KEVIN DENNEHY
and DAVID SCHOETZ STAFF WRITERS
A closed-door committee of the U.S. House of Representatives is considering whether to restrict wind turbines within 1½ miles of shipping and ferry lanes, a policy that could cripple the proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm.
The proposed restriction, confirmed by sources on both sides of the controversial Cape debate, is being considered as part of an $8.7 billion Coast Guard authorization bill.
House officials said the restriction is being pushed by U.S. Rep. Don Young, an Alaska Republican and chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Repeated calls to Young's office this week were not returned, and a spokesman for the Alaska congressman told a Washington reporter this week that Cape Wind supporters speculating about the restriction were being ''paranoid.'' But a staff member for U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, the Cape's congressman, said yesterday the restriction threatens to derail the wind farm.
Delahunt, who opposes the Cape Wind project, did not push for the language, however, according to Steven Broderick, a legislative aide for the Quincy Democrat. ''We're not sure what motivated Chairman Young,'' he said, ''but we're pleased by it.''
Supporters of the project said the proposed restriction is yet another attempt by federal lawmakers to slip language into bills that would undercut Cape Wind's plans for 130 turbines built over 24 square miles of Nantucket Sound that would be the nation's first offshore wind farm.
''(Wind farm opponents) don't want people to see the details until the bill becomes law,'' said Jaime Steve, legislative director for the American Wind Energy Association. ''As they say, sunshine is the best disinfectant.''
A year ago, U.S. Sen. John Warner, R-Va., tried to slide language into a $447 billion defense spending bill that would have imposed a moratorium on offshore wind projects. Earlier this year, Warner and U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., tried to exempt wind farms located off coasts, near military bases, in national parks, and in other potentially sensitive locations from receiving a crucial federal tax subsidy. Earlier this fall, Young's committee considered making any offshore wind project subject to review by the commandant of the Coast Guard.
''Unfortunately, this is pretty common,'' said Mary Boyle, a spokeswoman for Common Cause, a Washington-based organization pushing for a more open government. ''It should be debated out in public and not slapped into a rider where no one is aware of it except the person who wants it.''
Charles Vinick, CEO of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, confirmed his Washington sources were familiar with the attempt to restrict turbines near shipping lanes. He called the restriction entirely appropriate, citing concerns in the United Kingdom about the effects of wind turbines on coast guard and marine radar.
Vinick said the Cape Wind project would affect a triangle of ferry routes and shipping lines. ''This is the only project that has been proposed in the United States that is closer than 1½ miles (to) shipping lanes and ferry routes,'' he said. ''Cape Wind is smack dab in the middle ... which is a reason for concern.''
Mark Rodgers, a spokesman for Cape Wind, said the project poses no risk to boats and that some European offshore wind farms are sited even closer to highly-trafficked shipping lanes.
PLEASE READ BELOW, JUST ONE MORE REASON FOR SANCTUARY STATUS
David Robinson discussed a sediment core taken from the Massachusetts seabed. (Stew Milne for the Boston Globe)
Sunken treasure
Scientists find evidence of ancient forest buried under the seabed of Nantucket Sound!!!
By Beth Daley, Globe Staff | December 4, 2005
Scientists mapping the seabed under a proposed wind farm in Nantucket Sound were stunned by their find: evidence of a submerged forest under 6 feet of mud.
It's hardly the lost city of Atlantis, but the piece of birch wood, the yellowish-green grass, soil, and insect parts appear to be part of a forest floor that lined the coastline 5,500 years ago, before being swallowed by the sea that rose after the last ice age. Nearby is evidence of a drowned kettle pond and marsh.
The find has scientists abuzz because if a preserved forest rests below the sea, maybe artifacts from ancient cultures do, too -- items that could help answer some of the most vexing questions about early people in North America. As more energy projects are proposed off New England, archaeologists say, there will be more opportunity for even bigger finds.
''We've been arguing for years whether there are remnant prehistoric landscapes out there and now we know they can exist," said Victor Mastone, director and chief archaeologist of the Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources. ''This means there is the potential to go after the big theory of how did people get here and how they lived."
Cape Wind Associates, which has proposed the wind farm, redesigned the 130-turbine project this year to avoid the discovered area.
So much of the world's water was locked up in glaciers during the ice age, ocean levels plummeted at least 300 feet. New England's continental shelf was exposed and in some places, the coastline extended more than 75 miles from its current location.
Even at the end of the ice age 10,000 years ago, when melting glaciers were causing sea levels to rapidly rise, New England's coastline -- etched with river valleys, forests, and lakes -- stretched miles farther than today.
The earliest evidence of Native Americans in New England has come from around this time -- a period when hunters could have walked from Falmouth to Nantucket.
Tantalizing clues to these times have been extracted from the sea. New England fishermen have hauled up wooly mammoth and mastodon teeth dozens of miles from shore. A Native American campsite was found on the banks of a submerged riverbed off Maine's Deer Isle. At Odiorne Point State Park in Rye, N.H., visitors at low tide can still find tree stumps and roots dating back almost 4,000 years.
But these finds have little archaeological context. Scientists say the mastodon and mammoth teeth could have been swept out to sea by currents. The Native American campsite was so eroded it was difficult to extract a detailed story of the time period. And if any submerged settlements were at the Rye Beach drowned forest, erosion washed them away.
''That's why the Nantucket Sound site is important," said David Robinson, senior underwater archaeologist for The Public Archaeology Laboratory Inc. in Pawtucket, R.I. He discovered the Nantucket Sound site two years ago.
''It provides evidence to say these land forms can survive," he said.
Through several sediment samples taken 30 to 50 feet below the water's surface east of Horseshoe Shoal, Robinson pieced together the ancient landscape. The birch wood retrieved from the site is only about 4 inches long and 2 inches in diameter. But the delicate root hairs, leaf pieces and seeds in the samples tell Robinson and other scientists that the area probably was entombed under mud, and thus kept safe from stormy seas and tides.
''We really don't know how big the area is . . . although there is some evidence is it is not tiny," said John King, a professor of oceanography at the University of Rhode Island who has helped Robinson analyze the samples. King said that if Native American cultural sites are to be found, an intact landscape has to be found first. ''You need to zero in on these places. Without narrowing down the haystack you are not going to find anything."
The Native American story in New England and North America is incomplete. Archaeologists have long believed the first humans came to this continent about 12,000 years ago via a land bridge from Siberia to Alaska, following mammoths and other big game through the Great Plains, then farther east and south. But some scientists have put forth a different, controversial, theory: People migrated on a coastal route on the edge of the frozen north to get from Russia to the Pacific Coast -- or from Europe to North America.
With the prehistoric shoreline under water, there has been little evidence to support the coastal hypothesis. If scientists find an intact underwater cultural site -- in Nantucket Sound or elsewhere -- it might provide evidence of tools or food gathering that could help settle the debate.
Some scientists, however, say it's a fool's errand: Finding submerged settlements is so hard it's not worth the enormous time and expense.
''Most of the finds on land are fortuitous," said Robert Oldale, geologist emeritus of the US Geological Survey in Woods Hole, who has spent decades looking at the geology of Cape Cod's continental shelf. ''When you go offshore, it's thousands of times tougher."
Robinson, who worked on excavating submerged Stone-Age settlements off Denmark this fall, said that once a site is found, it's no more difficult to excavate than a shipwreck. The sea's cold temperatures and lack of oxygen preserve items far better than conditions on land. Denmark's finds have included fabric and food residue in ceramic pots in waters similar in condition to those off New England.
Archaeologists say the increase in projects off New England could help uncover sites of submerged settlements.
As with projects on land, federal and state laws require offshore projects to hire archaeological companies to determine whether construction will harm historically significant remains. Cape Wind hired The Public Archaeology Laboratory.
Historically, these underwater searches only meant one thing: shipwrecks. But technology is advancing to detect solid land below sea mud and sand, as is expertise around the world to excavate these sites. At Robinson's suggestion, officials at Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary -- which protects a once-exposed plateau 25 miles off Boston -- is considering special protection for paleontological resources in a new management plan it is drafting.
Robinson isn't sure when he'll study the Nantucket Sound site further. The area is difficult to dive and there is no money for surveying. But he's finishing his doctorate on these types of sites, and once he gets better data about underwater landscapes, he will start looking for drowned riverbanks because he knows Native American sites on land have been found on riverbanks. He hopes to one day take a magnetic sensor over potential areas, where ancient hearths will give off a telltale ping.
If Robinson does find a site, he will use the same archaeological tools used to research underwater shipwrecks to scrape and brush away the seabed.
Divers can dig excavation test pits with a water dredge, which gently vacuums sediment from the sea floor in layers to capture artifacts in a mesh bag.
''We would go slowly and methodically, just like we would do on land," he said. ''Everyone has always said this is impossible. It's not. It just requires a different way of approaching the problem."
WHAT WILL A HURRICANE DO TO THE 43,000 GALLONS OF OIL THAT THE WIND PLANT WILL PUT JUST OFF OUR VIRGIN BEACHES?? REMEMBER THE TITANTIC WAS DOUBLE HULLED.
BE SURE TO SEE THE HAUNTING PHOTOS OF WHAT YOUR CAPE COD BEACHES WILL LOOK LIKE BELOW-
CLICK ON YOUR BEACH TO ENLARGE
Hyannisport
Craigville Beach
Wianno- Osterville
Cotuit
Chappy- Marthas Vineyard
Oak Bluffs- Marthas Vineyard
Nobska Light- Woods Hole
130 TURBINES TO BE PILE DRIVEN!!
"STOP CAPE COD'S BIG DIG"
NANTUCKET SOUND CAN NOT DEFEND HERSELF
WILL MMS FILL THE VOIDS LEFT OPEN BY THE ARMY CORP?
1. Where is the 41,000 gallon Transformer Oil Spill Fatality Chart ordered by MMS and evry coastal town on Nantucket Sound over a year ago?
2. What kind of oil? Name, Make, Manufacturer
3. What about the massive Ship, Plane and Defense radar interference proven by the UK MOD and the UK Coast Guard? (see the UK reports below)
4.What about the effect of pile driving on our tourism and marine habitat? (see video below)
5. What about 580 lights at night time over 24 sq. mi.
6. What about the closing of our fishing grounds?
7. What about the fact questioned by the EPA on the potential increase of pollution from the Canal Plant because of the need to keep the backup power running at a level higher than present?
8. What about the fact that the FAA is ignoring British studies proving that the 400,000 flights a year that are passing over Nantucket Sound could have the radar systems rendered useless by the Wind Plant?
TODAYS WIND FARM PROTEST FROM AROUND THE WORLD
Would this put wind up Scott? Scotsman - United Kingdom ...Protest group Penicuik Environmental Protection Association (PEPA) said the windfarm - which would be built on one of Scotland's few remaining raised peat ...
Windfarm protesters head for energy utility ABC Online - Australia A group of land owners opposed to a planned windfarm near Hall will take their protest to ACTEW this morning. The group will present ...
Windfarm supporters lobby MP with petition Yorkshire Post Today - Leeds,Yorkshire,UK ... been an equally vociferous protest against the turbines, the tallest in the region at 400ft in height, with claims from the "antis" that the windfarm will be ...
Windfarm campaigners step up fight Scotsman - United Kingdom CAMPAIGNERS fighting proposals to build a windfarm on the outskirts of Penicuik have stepped up their battle against the plans by launching a protest website. ...
CAMPAIGNERS SEEK COURT INJUNCTION TO HALT WINDFARM PLAN Cumbrian Business Gazette - Penrith,Cumbria,UK ... The Bolton Low Houses site, at High Pow Farm, is one of 24 UK projects ... The legal protest, which is being supported by campaign group Force (Friends of Rural ...
Interior scrutiny The Cape must be fully engaged in setting rules for offshore renewable energy projects.
When it was announced earlier this month that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would cede authority over the proposed wind farm on Nantucket Sound to the Interior Department, supporters and opponents of the project applauded the change.
But giving Interior sole authority over offshore renewable energy projects is good and bad.
It's good in that the Minerals Management Service, a division of Interior that regulates offshore oil and gas drilling, clearly has more experience managing offshore activities than the Army Corps.
It's bad in that Interior has been granted - in the Energy Policy Act recently passed by Congress - wide discretion over how to regulate offshore renewable projects.
''Interior has not been known to be pro-conservation...so the Cape has to remain vigilant,'' said Mark Forest, an aide to U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass.
Indeed, the energy act contains language that grants sweeping, unilateral authority to the Secretary of Interior to determine how to develop federal waters more than three miles off the U.S. coast. In effect, the act lowers regulatory hurdles for developers to build everything from offshore wind farms to liquid natural gas processing platforms.
Fortunately, the details of how Interior will regulate offshore renewable energy projects are still being worked out. Congress gave the agency until May to craft specific regulations, and the rules-making process begins next week on Capitol Hill.
What rules should be considered?
1. Interior's regulatory process must provide for the substantive involvement of states, local governments and the public.
2. Interior must conduct a comprehensive planning analysis of offshore lands to determine which areas are best suited for renewable energy projects and which areas should be off limits.
3. A fair and equitable leasing process of offshore lands must include a competitive bidding process. Currently, the energy act allows the Secretary of Interior the power to solely issue easements or rights of way on a competitive or noncompetitive basis.
One provision in the act that is helpful, section 1833, calls for the National Academy of Sciences to recommend ''statutory and regulatory mechanisms for developing'' ocean energy resources, such as wind, tidal and wave projects. Dennis Duffy of Cape Wind said yesterday this section should not have any effect on proposals already in the pipeline, but Forest disagrees.
Nevertheless, Sens. Edward Kennedy, John Kerry and Delahunt, along with Cape citizens, must be fully engaged in this rules-making process to ensure that critical offshore areas, including such national treasures as Nantucket Sound, are protected from industrial development, and noncritical areas, such as the industrial area off Texas where another wind farm has been proposed, are zoned for development.
Other 'Professionals' challenge Cape Wind
The recent letter from Brian Sullivan urging opponents of the Cape Wind project to ''let the professionals decide'' the outcome of the Cape Wind debate sounds like common sense. But which professionals is he talking about? Of course, Cape Wind's paid consultants delivered the goods. Mr. Sullivan's assertion that there have been ''nothing but favorable reviews'' of the project is absurd and ignores an avalanche of serious issues raised by the professionals at the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of the Interior, U.S. Coast Guard, New England Fisheries Management Council, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, and the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries. Interior regards the draft environmental impact statement as ''at best incomplete, and too often inaccurate and/or misleading.'' Mr. Sullivan is free to cheer the project on, but he might want to start asking some questions on his own instead of swallowing everything that Cape Wind's professional boosters claim. Mark Weissman Mashpee The writer is a member of the Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Commission.
(Published: October 20, 2005)
Interior will rule on wind project
By KEVIN DENNEHY and DAVID SCHOETZ STAFF WRITERS After four years as the lead regulatory agency for the wind farm proposed for Nantucket Sound, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will not have the final say.
The Corps has begun transferring nearly 5,000 public comments and other documents to the Minerals Management Service, the federal agency recently granted final authority over offshore renewable energy projects.
The Army Corps will retain a smaller role in the review.
1981: 10 megawatts 
