Cape Wind project endures more controversy
By Susan Wilson
America’s first off shore wind farm has been a lighting rod for controversy since it was first proposed. State law makers are all for the project while several local organizations are staunchly opposed.
While the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU) are busy building off shore wind farms, the only U.S. off shore wind farm project is in limbo. Since 1999 Energy Management Inc. (EMI), has been developing clean energy projects one of which is Cape Wind.
Cape Wind is expected to eventually have 130 turbines creating 420 megawatts of power on Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound. The wind turbines will be 16 feet in diameter and 258 feet from the water’s surface to the center of the blades. The wind turbines will be set up in a pattern of parallel rows. “Within a row, the wind turbines will be .34 nautical miles apart (about 6 football fields), the rows will be .54 nautical miles apart (about 9 football fields).”
The project has received most of the local and state permits that it needs and is currently waiting on the U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar to approve the project. If/When final permission is given, Cape Wind will be ready to start wind turbine manufacturing and construction. Currently, the projected start date is some time in 2010.
Eighty-nine Massachusetts lawmakers, 74 house members and 15 senate members, have signed letters urging Secretary Salazar to approve the project. Also behind the project is the environmental group, The Association to Preserve Cape Cod.
Arrayed against the project are a number of groups. The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound is the most visible and most vocal. Other groups include the Cape Cod Commission, the Mashpee and Aquinnah Wampanoags as well as the
United South and Eastern Tribes (USET), the Passenger Vessel Association (PVA), and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA).
The Indian tribes oppose the project because of “unavoidable cultural, religious and archeological impacts”. The PVA and AOPA oppose the project because of safety concerns.
One of the concerns for the AOPA is that the wind turbines will cause “clutter” on air traffic control radar systems. Because of this problem the FAA was initially concerned about the project but an upgrade to the radar systems would alleviate the problem.
If Cape Wind is ever built, it would be a model that other coastal areas could use to harness renewable energy for the benefit of local citizens nearby areas. If Cape Wind is unable to get final approval, further off shore wind projects would likely not see the light of day. Let’s hope that Cape Wind succeeds.
Related:
Entry was posted
on Friday, April 10th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
under
Read more entries by Susan Wilson.
Stumble It!
April 14th, 2009
Green Star Alternative Energy is a demand driven, eco-energy company that concentrates its efforts on changing the way energy is produced. A bright future is dependant upon the appropriate actions of today – and Green Star is developing projects world wide to meet the global need for clean, environmentally friendly methods of energy creation. (GSAE.PK) http://www.greenstarae.com
April 16th, 2009
Real world adverse market conditions; and wind industry titans’ warnings regarding offshore wind energy, “technology baths”, for “vastly costlier” offshore wind, should be heeded.
Offshore wind energy adverse risks, costs, and market conditions have caused U.S. largest manufacturer of wind turbines, GE; and Shell Wind; and World’s Largest manufacturer of wind turbines, Vestas, to abandon offshore wind plans.
GE “discontinued” its offshore “prototype” 3.6 MW wind turbine that is specified by Cape Wind.
Senior VP of Vestas Peter Kruse states, “the only way forward is more turbines in virgin ground onshore”, and, “Politicians want offshore so they can avoid the Nimby discussion, but they are allowing a tiny minority to force the rest of the population to pay double for renewable energy.”
Shell Wind has announced it will no longer invest in offshore wind as it’s, “not economic”.
Unless and until we have the technical and cost solutions that elude GE, Vestas, and Royal Dutch Shell, we should take no action toward the privitization of our offshore, finite, resources.
New York Times
‘Cape Wind Navigates Shifts in Market’
By Kate Galbraith
March 27, 2009
“But G.E. no longer makes any offshore turbines, according to Steve Fludder, the head of G.E.’s green business unit, who sat down for a wide-ranging interview with The Times on Wednesday.
G.E. has instead focused its turbine business where it sees the vast majority of demand: on land. Offshore wind, said Mr. Fludder, is “just a vastly costlier proposition — not for us but for the world.”
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/cape-wind-navigates-shifts-in-market/#comment-45839
Vestas President and CEO Ditlev Engle stated of the Cape Wind project proposal to the Boston Globe: “And, therefore, I am really wondering why anybody wants to put them up offshore because it’s twice the price. So just as an outsider, I am just scratching my head saying, “Why?”
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/09/21/the_answers_to_him_are_blowing_in_the_wind/
Country Guardian UK
March 17, 2009
‘Shell dumps wind, solar and hydro power in favour of biofuels’
Shell will no longer invest in renewable energy technologies such as wind, solar and hydro power because they are not economic, the Anglo-Dutch oil company said today…”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/17/royaldutchshell-energy
Cape Wind poses a threat to humans as well as endangered wildlife, “at the brink of extinction”.
If Best Science is followed, (and the titans of of offshore wind experiences’ are observed), Cape Wind will not be constructed in Nantucket Sound.
April 24th, 2009
The misinformation in this piece is stunning. Please get it right. Cape Wind is a loser…at our expense. The aviation radar problems alone may kill it. Your statement about that issue is bogus and wrong. And they have neither turbines nor a PPA. What are they thinking?