Cape & Islands News
What do YOU think about these stories? You can add your thoughts on this story by leaving a comment below.Always on time and on budget. Offering planning and design to landscape construction, installation, irrigation, waterscapes and landscaping maintenance. Plus quality lawn hydro-seeding. (Barnstable)
Your online and print source for Cape-wide homes for sale and year-round rentals. Browse and search our listings online or order our free magazine. Distributed throughout the Cape. (Barnstable)
Report: Little harm from offshore wind farms in Denmark
EDITOR'S NOTE: This story is now available in an updated version here.
_________________________________________________________

The photos shown are taken from the PDF of the Danish report link below
15 years' experience shows that offshore wind farms can be built and run without significant damage to the marine environment
Special to cctoday by Jack Coleman
A major report just released in Denmark finds negligible impacts to birds, fish and mammals from the two largest offshore wind farms in the world at Horns Rev and Nysted.
"Danish experience for the past 15 years shows that offshore wind farms, if placed right, can be engineered and operated without significant damage to the marine environment and vulnerable species," state the executive summary of the report, titled "Danish Offshore Wind -- Key Environmental Issues," released over the weekend at a conference in Copenhagen on the results of an eight-year long monitoring program.
The report's findings could provide an important boost to the Cape Wind project proposed for Nantucket Sound, now in its sixth year of a rigorous regulatory review.
Among those attending was Craig Olmsted, vice president of development for Cape Wind, the Boston- and Yarmouth-based company seeking to build a 130-turbine wind farm, America's first, in Nantucket Sound.
"Listening to the scientists at the conference who had done the studies it was really clear -- offshore wind farms in Denmark have been good neighbors, to birds, fish and people," Olmsted said in a press release issued today by Cape Wind.
Researchers found that "even big wind farms pose low risks to birds, mammals and fish, even though there will be changes on the living conditions of some species by an increase in habitat heterogeneity."
The wind farms scrutinized in the report were the 80-turbine Horns Rev project (shown at right) situated seven to eight miles off Jutland in the North Sea, the largest in the world as measured by turbines, and the 72-turbine Nysted project in the Baltic Sea six miles off Lolland in southern Denmark. The Nysted wind farm (shown in the photo above left) has the highest generating capacity of any of the world's two dozen offshore wind farms, at 165.5 MW, enough to power 150,000 Danish households, according to the report.
The 144-page report, which includes a wealth of photos, diagrams, charts, maps and attribution, described specific impacts from offshore wind turbines -- to seabed flora and fauna, fish, birds, sea mammals such as porpoises and seals, sociological and economic effects and changes to the coastline ("coastal morphology").
Among its key findings:
"The Thermal Animal Detection System (TADS) provides empirical evidence that waterbird collisions are rare events. Collision risk modeling and bird tracking by radar as well as visual observations show that many waterbird species tend to avoid the wind farm, changing flight direction some kilometers away to deflect their path around the site. Birds flying through the wind farm tend to alter altitude to avoid the risk of collision. Under adverse weather conditions, which were thought to be likely to increase collision risk, results show that waterbirds tend to avoid flying." In addition, "radar studies at Horns Rev and Nysted (charts above on right) also confirm that many bird entering the wind farms reorientate to fly down between turbine rows, frequently equidistant between turbines, further minimizing collision risk. - "Abundance and biomass of the benthic communities increased at the wind farm sites compared to the native infauna communities. A consequence from the change in community structure was a local increase in biomass at the wind turbine sites by 50 to 150 times." And an "initial colonization of high numbers of the common mussel was found at both wind farm sites.
- "Both wind farm areas were found to be part of much larger foraging areas used by seals. No general change in behaviour at sea or on land could be linked to the construction or operation of the wind farms. The only effect detected on land was a reduction in the number of seals on land during pile driving operations at Nysted." Also, "Only a slight decrease in porpoise avoidance was found at Horns Rev during construction and no effect of the operation of the wind farm was seen. A clear decrease in the abundance of porpoises was found at Nysted during construction and operation of the wind farm, with indications of a slow recovery."
- "At both wind farm sites, fish were often found swimming around the artificial reef structures apparently searching for food and shelter."
"Investigations into the effects on fish and fish behaviour from electromagnetic fields were made at Nysted. Data have documented some effects from the cable route on fish behaviour indicating avoidance of the cable as well as attraction, depending on the species."- "A sociological and environmental economic study reveals that both the local and national populations are positive towards the offshore wind farms."
“After eight years of study, they've concluded that there's virtually no harm," said Barbara Hill, executive director of the pro-wind farm Clean Power Now advocacy group. "This certainly does underscore many of the benefits of the Cape Wind project, as revealed by the DEIS (draft environmental impact statement) released by the Army Corps of Engineers.”
Also attending the conference, and making trips to three offshore wind farms during a week-long visit to Denmark, was Susan Nickerson, executive director of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, a well-funded local group opposed to Cape Wind.
Nickerson cautioned the results of the report are “site-specific” for the Horns Rev and Nysted projects, not Cape Wind. While findings of negligible impacts to marine life, birds and the environment are “encouraging,” Nickerson said, it came as little surprise since “the siting process has been a very thorough one” in Denmark.
The small Nordic nation began an aggressive push toward conservation, renewables and extracting oil and natural gas from the North Sea in response to the Arab oil embargo of the mid-70s. What has resulted three decades later is a “government-driven” energy policy involving “national interest and public participation,” said Nickerson in a phone interview.
”It’s a very different process here,” she said. “We don’t have a national energy policy, or a national renewable energy policy. The single most important basis for siting the Cape Wind project is economic -- is it going to be profitable for a developer? It’s the reverse of how they do it in Denmark.”
While Denmark has been aggressive in pushing offshore wind, the Danes have also deemed certain coastal areas off-limits to wind turbines, Nickerson said. The report confirms this, stating that “Bird Protection and Habitat Directives areas comprising a total of 13,000 square kilometers have been designated in the Danish waters.”
The report also indicates that Denmark will proceed with plans to double the size of the Nysted and Horns Rev projects in the next few years. While wind power currently provides Denmark with 20 percent of its electricity, the report states, by 2025 it may exceed 50 percent – “out of which most is envisaged to be offshore.”
”We have come a long way since the 1980s, when most electricity consumption was based on coal and when acidification of forests and lakes by acid rain was the predominant theme in the environmental debate,” the report states.
MTC's Watson describes report as "important milestone"
Greg Watson, vice president for sustainable development and renewable energy at theMassachusetts Technology Collaborative, hailed the report as “an important milestone in offshore wind energy development.”
”Comprehensive monitoring of the world’s two largest offshore wind projects have lead Danish government officials to conclude that offshore wind farms can be developed sustainable,” Watson said via email. “That is, in ways that pose minimal environmental risks.”
”I think what is most important about the Danish report is that scientists and government officials have been able to distill general principals from the site-specific monitoring at Horns Rev and Nysted,” Watson said, “principals that, when properly considered and applied can guide developers and regulators to the design of sustainable offshore wind farms in other environments in other parts of the world.
”This is extremely encouraging news in light of the urgent need to find solutions to global climate change,” Watson said. “Wind energy remains the fastest growing and cleanest source of electricity on the world today. An understanding of how to sustainably develop the world’s vast offshore wind resources means we have a viable option for meeting current and future energy needs without further compromising the Earth’s atmosphere and the quality of life of future generations.
Cliff Carroll remains concerned about effects to commercial fishing
Windstop.org founder Cliff Carroll, a mortgage broker and staunch opponent of Cape Wind, dismissed the report and said he was “not impressed by the spin.”
”This report states that the fishing stock has still not recovered,” Carroll wrote in an email detailing his criticisms. “It has already been four years (since the projects were built). Did I miss something?
”The report indicates an increase in mussels and their predator, the starfish,” Carroll states. “Do you realize that this usually indicates the end of the natural cycle of a marine habitat?”
Carroll also pointed out that 400,000 flights a year pass through the airspace over Nantucket Sound and Cape Wind would be situated in an area with three regional airports. “By the way, did you know that Logan/FAA just turned down four turbines planned just off Hull?” Carroll said. “The radar issue is not going away.”
”Cape Wind has been asked repeatedly to give us the oil data, the wind data and the bird radar studies,” Carroll said. “Ask yourself, what are they afraid of, what are they hiding? This report is like asking Jack Kervorkian to do a study on arsenic.”
CPN’s Barbara Hill compared the initial reaction of Danes to proposed wind farms to the local response to Cape Wind in recent years.
"The local communities did respond with concerns that were incredibly legitimate,” Hill said. "The regulatory process was more centralized and there was no real voice that could be heard from local communities. There was also a concern about the visual intrusions and tourism."
"If we are going to look at this as it relates to the Cape Wind project, those same concerns have been raised," Hill said. "The Cape Wind project continues to move forward because the public benefits outweight the perceived impacts. It continues to move on a track for the particular project. But in tandem, we are awaiting through Minerals Management Service a larger regulatory framework in order to address multiple projects of this type.
"But absent a real project, we would never have had this dialogue. There would have been no reason to."
The report, Hill said, proves that offshore wind power “is now and the future. I hope that itdoes allay some fears and concerns that people have in this country about the Cape Wind project."
The research was coordinated by an "Environmental Group" consisting of the Danish Forest and Nature Agency, the Danish Energy Authority, and Vattenfall and DONG Energy, the companies that own the two wind farms. Its cost was financed by electricity users in Denmark, the report states.
Those serving on the Environmental Group were in "continuous dialogue" with representatives from the World Wide Fund for Nature, the Danish Society of Conservation of Nature, the Danish Outdoor Council, Greenpeace, the Danish Ornithological Society and the Danish Organization for Renewable Energy. Results of the study were assessed by the International Advisory Panel of Experts on Marine Ecology (IAPEME). See a later version of this story here.
Jack Coleman is a freelance writer, editor, blogger and former media adviser to the pro-wind farm Clean Power Now non-profit based in Hyannis. He can be reached at polnotes@yahoo.com
135 comments
Blog posts and comments are entirely the thoughts and ideas of the people who write them and in no way represent the views of CapeCodToday.com, eCape, Inc., or its employees or owners.
Barbara we can always trade newspaper articles or Op Eds that take different slants, but here we're talking about the conclusions from 8 years of studies from two different offshore wind farms - that's a whole different kettle of fish.
Speaking of fish - no Cliff, the report says nothing to corroborate your claim that "fishing stocks have not recovered" , rather, it says clearly that fish are equally abundant now as before the construction and they speculate they will become more numerous. And what's this about Hull's offshore wind turbines being rejected because of Logan? I've seen nothing reported on that, just more or Cliff's hot air...
Favorable action by MMS on the Cape Wind permit application would be vigorously challenged, just ask any NIMBY. The Cape Wind project is ill conceived as proposed for Nantucket Sound. Our regulators need only refer to the intent and spirit of the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, in their review of the Cape Wind permit application, and available data, to conclude this. Under an objective NEPA review, this proposal will fail to meet public interest requirements.
The Air Traffic Controllers Union at Cape Approach states that they, “could not think of a worse place to put these turbines." The Woods Hole, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority states this proposal poses a “significant hazard to safe navigation.” The Barnstable Airport, Martha's Vineyard Airport, and the Nantucket Memorial Airport strongly object Cape Wind. The Barnstable Airport officials call this project "Lethal."
NEPA asserts that it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings and; to attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences.
That which poses a threat to the public safety fails to meet public interest requirements of NEPA. MMS must adhere to the rules of NEPA in their evaluation of the Cape Wind proposal. The federal government holds this public resource in trust for the public. The Cape Wind plan would create a public safety hazard, kill our wildlife, and threaten our heritage trades in this public resource.
“Our opponents are fond of saying that Nantucket Sound is not for sale," Jim Gordon said. “And sometimes I think that's because they believe they already own it."
That’s because we do.
The Cape Wind application for the industrial use of 24 square miles of Nantucket Sound is presented by a private developer for his private gain. This “solution” to our energy needs is a panacea packaged by a marketing company seeking control of one of most prolific marine resources in the U.S. The beneficiaries, if this taking is to occur, would be Cape Wind, the American Wind Energy Association, AWEA, GE, and friends—not the American public or wildlife.
Cape Wind is under review, astonishingly, as the lead reviewing agency, Marine Minerals Management Service, MMS, is creating policy for governance of the alternate use of our Outer Continental Shelf. Cape Wind has selected a site for their utility scale wind plant that conflicts with heritage use and trades in an
endangered species habitat, flyway, area of high bird concentration, spawning ground, and Essential Fish Habitat. The communities of the Cape and islands and citizens of Massachusetts depend upon this marine resource. Dr. Louis DeVorsey noted historical geographer observed, “There exists an intimate relationship between the inhabitants of the area and the surrounding waters.” Cape Wind would end untold centuries of public dependence on Horseshoe Shoal; but not Americans dependency on foreign oil.
“Commercial and Recreational Fishermen Who Oppose the Taking of Coastal Fishing Areas for Industrial Wind Projects.” is the preamble of the Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership, MFP, representing over 3,000 commercial fishermen.
The decimation of their industry will be thwarted if Cape Wind fails to meet public interest requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. We will avoid the environmental impact of up to 6,600 avian mortalities per year arrived at by Mass Audubon scientists if MMS as agency of the Department of Interior, DOI, denies the Cape Wind permit application. Observance of NEPA’s principles and federal and state wildlife protection laws will help our regulators avoid this environmental and economic marauder.
Logic and reason mean nothing to zealots.
It's like arguing with the Islamist terrorists in Iraq, but these babes are even crazier !
These haridans can't see the forest for the trees, or in this case, the ocean for the turbines. Save you breath.
We are responding to an ad slick referred to as a "report."
"MTC History
The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MTC) is an initiative of the Massachusetts Technology Park Corporation (MTPC), an independent instrumentality of the Commonwealth created in 1982 to advance the growth of the technology sector of the Massachusetts economy through collaborative activities among industry, universities and state government..."
"What We Do
The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative is the state’s development agency for renewable energy and the innovation economy, which is responsible for one-quarter of all jobs in the state..." [cut]
MTC is a sponsor of Mass Audubon’s Cape Wind scientific review process.
In the opinion of the Department of Interior: “the alternatives analysis is dramatically limited in scope by the purpose and need statement. In turn, this has an equally dramatic effect their ability to identify reasonable alternatives that would have fewer impacts on fish, wildlife, and other resources.”
The DOI continues: “A second notable feature of the DEIS is the tendency to make conclusory statements regarding the environmental effects of this proposal. A major causal factor driving this tendency appears to be the lack of important site-specific information on natural resources in, on, or in the airspace above Nantucket Sound that would be affected by the proposed project.”
If Cape Wind is permitted, and endangered species die, the courts are likely to rule that the regulators who allowed the project to be built may not have adequately protected the wildlife, and that the wind developers themselves are not responsible. This is, in fact, what a judge in California has just ruled in the Altamont, California case.
Logic and reason as applied by:
“The Peer Review Committee consists of six internationally recognized experts in wind energy who have kindly volunteered to review draft documents to support the decision-making process of the US Army Corps of Engineers New England District (USACE) regarding the Cape Wind project.
Serious concern was expressed about the long-term viability of the project and the possibility of project failure. One reviewer observed that an abandoned wind farm at sea would seem to be the worst possible environmental outcome, with no benefits to offset the impacts. The history of wind projects in the United States has included numerous
technology problems, and several failed, bankrupt projects. One reviewer was concerned about the proposed turbines, an early commercial use of turbines that size, let alone in the
marine environment. The reviewer felt that a project scaled within the limited industry offshore experience base could help insure the long-term viability of the proposed wind
farm.”
should be observed...
In response to your comment: “And what's this about Hull's offshore wind turbines being rejected because of Logan? I've seen nothing reported on that, just more or Cliff's hot air...” You owe Mr. Carroll an apology.
The FAA Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW Aeronautical Study No. 2005-ANE-995-OE of 9/28/06: *DETERMINATION OF HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION*
The Federal Aviation Administration has completed an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and, if applicable, Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning:
Structure: Wind Turbine
Location: Boston, MA
Latitude: 42-19-2.93 N NAD 83
Longitude: 70-58-7.74 W
Heights: 394 feet above ground level (AGL)
434 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)
“This aeronautical study revealed that the structure as described would have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft and/or on the operation of air navigation facilities. Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would be a hazard to air navigation.”
Kevin Haggerty
Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Service
You obviously have no idea how wind energy equipment is purchased and installed. General Electric will be required to provide guarantees and warranties that the turbines they sell to Cape Wind will work for the life of the project. Do you actually believe that GE will go bankrupt because of a project the size of Cape Wind?? GE has a vested interest in seeing these wind turbines work as claimed because its the fastest growing sector of energy production.
Thankfully we now will have a Governor that is not beholding to the rich property front owners that have provided the majority of the money to The Alliance and its paid employees.
Capri- so greenpaece isnt environmental enough for you... I bet you support killing coyotes because they eat birds
Barbara
You obviously have no idea how wind energy equipment is purchased and installed. General Electric will be required to provide guarantees and warranties that the turbines they sell to Cape Wind will work for the life of the project.”
Reaching, but I’ll respond that even a 14 year old recognizes the hollowness of your claim worth the paper it’s written on.
Why Wind Farm don’t work
By Jack Ingram, a fourteen year old 9th grader at Barnstable High School, on why he believes the Cape Wind Farm proposal is not realistic.
The Realities of Wind Farm Maintenance:
http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/letters/2006/04/
GE will not occupy NS, Cape wind won’t either. SHOW ME THE BOND.
But first, let’s establish IF Cape Wind belongs in Nantucket Sound. Cape Wind presents a “significant hazard to safe navigation” according to the navigators of Nantucket Sound. Therefore, under NEPA requirements, Cape Wind should fail the public safety litmus test. NEPA asserts that it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings and; to attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences.
My only regret was that Jack C didn't call in.
You could have eaten his lunch as well.
Superb. Great presentation. The truth will prevail.
I am sure I will get an e-mail from SP tonight saying BH didn't get a fair shot. Huh? Howie doesn't even know where Northboro is.
I have a general question for Barbara, Capri and any other users who oppose the Cape Wind farm. You have outlined in detail your objections to the project, but I do not see your recommended alternative solutions for renewable energy & lessening our demand on fossil fuels. What are your alternatives to Cape Wind?
Also, I found it interesting that the article Barbara provided a link to at Scotsman.com (which I found informative), also included a poll on wind turbines. 75% of those who responded favored the use of wind turbines and solar panels in Edinburgh. I understand there's a difference between onshore and offshore farms, but it's worth noting. Thanks in advance for your replies.
Jack:
Your contribution, ‘Little harm from offshore wind farms in Denmark,’ was altered resulting in the elimination of all of the comments under this heading.
Could this be a case of... “If you can’t beat ‘em delete ‘em?” Or is it a matter of "house rules" that prescribe adding artwork that makes it more difficult for readers to follow the debate under the original Post?
Previous comments are not available under the new and “improved” Post, same title. http://www.capecodtoday.com/news550.htm
The comments ARE still available for readers’ to review on the original Post, right here.
Ms. Durkin, you are misinformed, and thus misinforming others.
Hello!!!! Barbara, Capri, and Cliff are the most informed on this site re Cape Wind.
I demand an immediate apology. If not I will show Peck how to get back on this site.
He knows Chinese.
EDITOR's NOTE: Read the comment above again Mav, we wrote she is misinformed about the the comments being deleted and not being available.
Tongue in cheek, or foot in mouth? You decide.
Do I need Peck to come on and show the spanking BH received?
You are barking up the wrong tree. They are looking for a " feels good " solution that requires nothing from them.
Trust me. This crowd will be extinct and the planet will recover and survive. Birds, sharks, whales, etc. will live on in harmony and laugh at us all.
Thank you for adding the comments that did not appear in the previous revision.
I personally don't think that the second edition that includes the fish art had much to do with anything but...
Is this not a true statement I've made to Jack, CCT?
"Your contribution, ‘Little harm from offshore wind farms in Denmark,’ was altered resulting in the elimination of all of the comments under this heading."
This is a question.> "Could this be a case of... “If you can’t beat ‘em delete ‘em?”
I'm missing the misinformation that you refer to:
EDITOR's NOTE: Read the comment above again Mav, we wrote she is misinformed about the the comments being deleted and not being available.
Who's misinformed here?
Welcome, yours in an interesting moniker in the phonetic sense.
In answer to your question about alternatives to Cape Wind:
Let the Wind Power us from deep water: http://www.saveoursound.org/node/331
“Deep-water wind energy may be farther from shore, but it is now closer to reality than many realize. And far-offshore wind generation promises the benefits of wind without many of the negative impacts of near-shore sites. This promising technology offers a better solution to our energy needs without sacrificing our near-shore coastline and without destroying rich ecological areas like Nantucket Sound.”
I would like to see production tax credits revised to reduction tax credits payable to citizens as incentive for reduction of our consumption of energy. The carrot approach might serve us better than our consciences have in environmental terms. Taxpayers pay developers to exacerbate environmental problems with placebos like Cape Wind. Let's create policy that will return our money to ourselves if we conserve energy.
You are a great guy and family man. Wonderful writer and reporter. Love you and your compassion.
Please pay attention to everything that is said. The debate on RI radio today said it all.
Lets not get all worked up over personal opinions about the perceived threats to the environment by the Cape Wind project. Be patient. Any fatal flaws will show up in the Mineral Management Service Environmental Impact Report reasonably soon and the wind farm will simply not be permitted if so determined. Likewise with FAA and the Coast Guard findings.
However, when compared to the favorable Danish experience and the other northern European countries (12 operating offshore wind farms and another half-dozen under construction), I suspect there will be no fatal flaws found here and the permitting will go inexorable on. But that’s just my personal opinion.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
So what’s your solution to increasing demand for electricity? Unless you think you are in Utopia, ever more is going to be required... listen to what ISO NE is telling you. Rolling blackouts or build more coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear or would you choose wind power? Your choice.
Energy independence? In NE 24% of generating capacity is from oil fired plants, 35% from natural gas.
The U.S. reached peak oil production in 1973, likewise natural gas. Now U.S. imports 60% of our oil and 24% of our gas... from you know who.
The cost of fuel alone is about 6 cents/kWh for oil generated electricity (i.e., Canal plant) and about 5 cents for gas generated electricity. Coal and nuclear: about 2 cents/kWh.
So who do you think gets backed off when wind power comes on line?
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
You do not delete comments, and I asked a question that went the way of rumors. You are perfectly capable of engaging in informed and articulate debate that I prefer over "he said, she said," so let's debate.
I apologize for any impression that I may have given you that I think that deleting comments is a tactic that you would employ. I do know you better than that.
Charles:
Is is permissible for us to get worked up over real threats posed by Cape Wind as determined by professionals in your personal opinion?
I consider our navigators as professionals with expert opinions. If Cape Wind was permitted, and inexorable legal appeals fail to prevent a safety hazard, could you imagine...?
"This is your Captain. Welcome aboard the Woods Hole, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority vessel bound for Nantucket. Due to the presence of wind towers in Nantucket Sound, there is a significant hazard to safe navigation, passengers wishing to disembark for personal safety reasons may do so at this time."
In a midnight discussion, do you think any of our professional captains would ever fly into the Copenhagen Airport or navigate a large vessel into Copenhagen Harbor? After all, there are 20 very large wind turbines smack in the middle of the Harbor a mile from shore and four miles from the airport. They don’t call it Middelgrunden for nothing. Nary a one has been hit yet.
Or do you think the Danish pilots on Iceland Air are just a bunch of cavalier Norsemen coming home from a foreign quest? Been there a couple of times myself. Seems safe enough for me. How about you?
Regards,
Chuck K.
Responding to the gist of your last comment, “Don’t worry, be happy,” I don’t think that the experts who navigate the Nantucket Sound; and/or the pilots and air traffic controllers of our air space, who strongly state risk to public safety if Cape Wind is permitted, should be ignored. In fact, I think for our regulators to ignore them would be reckless and reprehensible and in conflict with NEPA. That which poses a threat to the public safety fails to meet public interest requirements of NEPA that directs the federal government to provide the public with assurance of public safety.
Barbara Hill, your CPN executive director, does not think that the statements and professional opinions that Cape Wind would be “Lethal,” (Barnstable Airport official’s term), should be ignored either. I asked her directly if these professional navigators’ warnings should be ignored just yesterday on 920WHJJ Rhode Island. Her answer is, “No.”
I don’t think that there is documented predicted public safety risk associated with the Big Dig. My point is that Cape Wind is a potentially “lethal” Boondoogle.
When Icelanders returned home from one of their foreign quests in the early 11th century they reported [in the ‘Greenlander’s Saga’] they had sailed into a “sund”- or ‘sound,’ that “…lay between an island and a cape that stretched northward from the land.” They said that within the ‘sound’ they found “grunnsævi mikið” - ‘extensive shallows’- and at low tide “…their ship was left high and dry with the sea almost out of sight.”
There is no longer any doubt the Icelanders were describing a specific section of North American coastline. A majority of researchers believe the account describes the coast of southern New England- most likely Nantucket Sound.
Would you agree that Nantucket Sound matches this description set down in the Greenlander’s Saga?
And would you agree there are not many places like Nantucket Sound?
“Goldman puts wind up energy sector
The reasons for the proposed sale, after just 18 months of ownership, were not clear, although many analysts said that it could be in response to huge uncertainty surrounding the wind power industry.”
“Concerns are mounting that the renewable energy market in America may be close to its peak after Goldman Sachs, a barometer of the industry, put its Horizon Wind Energy business up for sale for an estimated $1.5 billion (£760 million).
The reasons for the proposed sale, after just 18 months of ownership, were not clear, although many analysts said that it could be in response to huge uncertainty surrounding the wind power industry.
Will Ainger, co-editor of SparkSpread, the online US power industry resource, said: “Lots of bankers look at Goldman Sachs as the weathercock of the energy industry and so many are assuming that it is now calling the top of the market.”
http://www.acore.org/pdfs/REFIN_2004_lores.pdf
The renewable energy finance and investment network, (REFIN), the sources of finance for renewable energy, may think that the production tax credit, (that could deliver $28 million to Cape Wind federally annually), may go the way of the dinosaur. Or…that Cape Wind has given the renewables’ industry a serious black eye.
Your news contribution is very interesting about 15 million European households in a blackout, and that uncontrolled renewable energy in the form of wind power was a key factor in the grid disturbance.
Especially interesting, as there is quite a contrast between the facts and reality perceived by ISO of New England who asked federal lawmakers not to block Cape Wind because the region could face rolling blackouts as early as the summer of 2008, according to the Boston Globe.
The "cure" is apparently worse than the disease.
I know that this does not surprise you in the least.
I wonder if Goldman Sachs knew the aforementioned blackout in Europe happened prior to putting Horizon Wind Energy up for sale for $1.5 billion?
If Goldman Sachs did not know this prior to setting a price on Horizon Wind, will there now be room for negotiation on price and terms?
I don't know about you, but I think think that renewable energy investors are increasingly becoming aware of the high risks associated with investment in wind energy.
Add to Bill Gates side of the aisle American billionaire, Donald Trump, who is not "buying the farm" either. He can be counted among the enlightened industrial wind detractors. He said he would abandon a planned £300 million Aberdeenshire golf investment unless proposals for a nearby wind farm were scrapped. He said wind towers would spoil the views.
Kudos to Bill Gates and Donald Trump.
you can post all the reports you want and youll still NEVER be an expert in the field of Wind energy economics or any other field in wind energy. I worked in the industry for several years and have an insiders understanding how the turbines operate. I wont comment on the EIS and other environmental issues because I dont care about them to be honest, the project will or will not go forward. However none of you here has any real experience working on wind farms you just quote others and act like your experts when your not. I spent way too much time dragging my ass around the woods doing site assessment work and investigating potential windfarm locations to take anymore nonsense from you fools.
I spend my days now working on the sewering issue on cape cod which is so much more of an environmental concern than a bunch of wind turbnies. Cleaning up nitrogen in the estuaries is my goal, which is something Im proud of while the rest of you fools cry about development. If it was left up to you and capri we would be back in caves eating nuts and berries... ps ban me I dont care
Barbara and Capri have never claimed to be experts. Their research and documentation suggest " we should look before we leap ".
Had we done more research and developmental planning you wouldn't have a job chasing nitrogen in estuaries. Nor would we have the annual fish kills in Narragansett Bay.
Instead of attacking we should be thanking them for all their unpaid hard work.
Simmer down. A fool I'm not. You continue to drag your behind out in the field, and I’ll continue to provide research including expert opinion.
I really can't establish you as a source of information as, "Cape Cod Guy," does not meet my information criteria, I can't exactly qualify you as a source, personally. I do have a question for you, just the same.
What do you think the bond figure should be on a per turbine basis relative to Cape Wind? Is there a formula that you can provide for determination of bond value?
Have you ever run into Dan Juhl in your travels?
Feb. 27 (Bloomberg) –
“The General Electric windmills are more difficult to maintain than standard equipment, said Dan Juhl, who has helped set up dozens of wind turbines, including the two on the Kas farm and 17 he owns across the street. ``I won't touch them,'' he said.”
Thank you, Maverick, you're the best.
GE has a patent on variable speed generators in the US which means a Vestas 2.o MW machine must be downgraded to 1.8 MW because of this patent. The variable speed technology means you get 10% more energy than a comparable Vestas machine this requires more maintenence and upkeep. Vestas makes a great turbine but they have difficulty competing because of the patent and dollar versus euro rates. All the worlds wind turbine manufacturers have sold out all their machines for the next several years. The industry is growing extremely quickly with installed capacity up 40% or so last year. By any ones standards this is a huge growth in one year so there is no worry that the industry will falter. Because of steel prices and huge backlog the machines are more expensive and this has effected the cost margins for Cape Wind. Ofshore wind is much different that land based machines with higher costs but with higher wind speeds so its a tradeoff.
What do you think the bond figure should be on a per turbine basis relative to Cape Wind? Is there a formula that you can provide for determination of bond value?
Bravo! your comment:
"CapeCodGuy, interesting you should say that none of us have any experience working on wind farms so you attempt to dismiss us. BUT, I would like to point out that Jim Gordon and Cape Wind has none either."
Capri - you recommended 'conservation'. While your recommendation is noble and I agree that Americans exhaust far too many resources, unfortunately, I don't believe that this is a realistic solution to our current energy consumption problems.
Barbara - you sighted building wind farms further offshore, in an article from Save our Sound. The reply I read from Cape Wind indicates that they feel deep water and floating turbine 'commercial development is still 10 to 15 years away'. I did not see a corresponding reply from the alliance - is there additional information available on this topic (perhaps Cape Cod Guy has some insights based on his experience)?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml
"We have to, in the next 10 years, get off this exponential curve and begin to decrease the rate of growth of CO2 emissions," James Hansen, arguably the world's leading researcher on global warming, explains. “"If that doesn't happen in 10 years, that means - there’s a great danger of passing some of these tipping points. If the ice sheets begin to disintegrate, what can you do about it? You can’t tie a rope around the ice sheet. You can’t build a wall around the ice sheets. It will be a situation that is out of our control."
We are at a crucial point in time with regards to global warming, and the longer we wait to take action, the more dire the consequences will be. I understand that there are risks and issues associated with Cape Wind, but the alternatives we have, as outlined, do not solve our current energy needs.
Weighing the pros and cons of both sides, I am more inclined to back the proponents of Cape Wind. Open to added opinions & observations, of course. Thanks.
Jon Boone
You may want to refer to my blog “Footnotes” posted here on 07/31/06
Titled “The Allure of Deepwater Wind Power”
An excerpt...
The technical viability and economic practicality [of deepwater wind] lay somewhere in the future. The question is how far in the future? And what must be done to get there? And must we wait?
Compared to conventional shallow water offshore windfarms that cost about $2 million per MW installed, the fixed-pile four-leged foundation Talisman project at $5.8 million per MW is almost three times as expensive and prohibitively uneconomical in the near term.
In a cautious statement Talisman Energy has said “current forecasts for electricity prices will never render this Demonstrator Project economic. It is an R&D project, not a commercial one, and as such requires public sector funding in order to proceed.” Furthermore, they say it is impossible, at this stage to give any definitive answer regarding the go ahead for the commercialization of this project “but it certainly should not be regarded as inevitable.”
C. Kleekamp
No one has put up a viable reason
" why not ".
Please answer as I have not heard a response from anyone including CPN.
If Peck were here I would get an answer. Instead I have to listen to your pompous drivel.
God help us all.
You are a paid for fraud.
spouts crap, never answers a question and then leaves.
But it get's him invited to all of the cocktail parties sponsored by Jim G.
What a country. For a few glasses of free vino and a few shrimp we sell our souls.
Maybe that is what is wrong with America. Rafio please help me. I am about to go ballistic.
Most "normal" folks don't spend their lives commenting all day even on a wonderful site like this one.
Perhaps your nemesis has something more imprtant to do this afternoon, like take a walk, smell the snow flakes, soak your head in a bucket of cold water.
And accusing people of being frauds or selling themsleves for a glass of wine and free shrimp is unworthy of you and bordering on slander.
Use your God-given logic and reason, which you have in abundance, rather than mindless ire to defeat your opponents.
But first, take two aspirin and go to bed for a nice nap ;>)
Dream about fish.
Doesn't make you a bad person. Please give me an answer to Nantucket Shoals.
Thanks,
Jack
Why in two years no answer to " why not Nantucket Shoals? "
Do you go to the same parties?
I am calling my law firm " Peckam,Peckam and Peckam " as we speak.
You can expect a very lengthy reply. Could go on for days.
In the interim. What about Nantucket Shoals? CCT has all the answers.
There is a deep water pilot project already up in Scotland, 5 MW in 150’ water depths, 12 miles from shore. It is technically feasible today. The cost is the issue. Bringing cost down is a matter of investment in the technology. We can shorten the time frame by investing more resources. Offshore floating turbines technology is being pursued by MIT. DOE and others have stated they are investing almost $30 million in deepwater using more powerful turbines to be cost competitive in 5 years. Again, timing is a matter of investment to bring costs down. This technology is viable today as shown in Scotland.
Was that for me or Chuck?
1. wind resource must average 19 mph or greater
2. must be in shallow water less than 50 feet
3. max wave height must be less than 15 feet
4. must be close to existing transmission sub-stations and transmission lines
5. outside of shipping lanes and instrument aircraft approaches
I hope this helps answer your question.
My apologies, you asked the question about deep water technology. I addressed an answer on status of the same to Chuck. Please refer to my 5:08 PM comment to Chuck in response to your inquiry.
Thank you,
Barbara D.
Your comment:
"Barbara - you sighted building wind farms further offshore, in an article from Save our Sound. The reply I read from Cape Wind indicates that they feel deep water and floating turbine 'commercial development is still 10 to 15 years away'. I did not see a corresponding reply from the alliance - is there additional information available on this topic (perhaps Cape Cod Guy has some insights based on his experience)?"
You are interfering with a revenue stream at CCT. Do you want this blog to go out of business.
Where else could I spend my mindless days?
Wrong on all of them. Have to cook dinner for the bride but will be back in spades. Unless CCT bans me in the interim. They love your parties.
To be fair, wind plant proponents have less ammunition available.
I wouldn't shoot ducks, of course, but I know the feeling. :)
The demonstration project off the coast of Scotland cost $60 million dollars for 10MW and was heavily financed by the government. That amounts to $6 million dollars a megawatt.
This was never planned to be economically viable only as a demo project. In this country as opposed to European nations all energy projects must be economically viable or they won't be built.
"A number of issues need to be before economically viable electricity generating wind projects can be built in deep waters off the US. Our experts are confident that they can be addressed, but not overnight (10 - 20 years) and not without the benefit of experience gained from shallow water projects." Greg Watson, VP, Mass Technology Collaborative.
Barbara J. Hill writes:
Regarding request about why currently a wind project could not be sited on Nantucket Shoals which is located south of the island of Nantucket - the answer is it does not meet all the following criteria which is currently required for siting a viable offshore wind project:
1. wind resource must average 19 mph or greater...Nantucket Shoals enjoys the same wind or greater. Do your homework.
2. must be in shallow water less than 50 feet... please look at a nautical chart and you will see Nantucket Shoals qualifies. Have you ever looked at a chart? Or been too busy arranging parties.
3. max wave height must be less than 15 feet...do you have documentation that the wave height on Nantucket Shoals is any different than Horseshoe Shoal? I am there all year long. When was the last time you were there.
You state.." meet all the following criteria "? Who set the criteria? cont'd on next page.
4. must be close to existing transmission sub-stations and transmission lines...please define
" close to ". You have to be joking. Nothing more definitive.
5. outside of shipping lanes and instrument aircraft approaches...please show me the shipping lanes and aircraft approaches in Nantucket Sound. And please don't mention Great Round Shoal channel. That is not the area we are suggesting.
Your comment..." I hope this helps answer your question." Sorry but it created a huge question. Do you or anyone at CPN know what the hell you are talking about?
Sorry for confusing Nantucket Shoal with Nantucket Sound. But I don't think it matters. You obviously don't know the similarities or difference.
To busy planning your next party. I hope you invite Walter.
Maverick, reading your comments here is the best example I've seen in years of why public opinion has shifted firmly in favor of the project. You asked about Nantucket Shoals as an alternative site, as those alternative sites have not already been thoroughly considered -- as they are still being considered -- and Barbara Hill responded in a civil and helpful manner. Your response to that was to insult her intelligence. Way to go, big guy!
All those frequent references to your "bride" are clearly nothing more than an attempt to distract attention from your essential loutishness.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever been diagnosed as bipolar? One day you're excoriating those with the gall to disagree with you, the next you're shedding tears like a character in a Bud Lite ad over what great people they are.
Come to think of it, I take it all back -- keep up the good work!
Barbara, I do appreciate your answer, but within the same day, you have provided links that both support and criticize wind power in general, so I am confused by your position.
Please do not worry about posting a lengthy reply. I have been doing some research on the site, and unfortunately, the tone of one of the posters here has made me decide to move onto greener pastures.
Look, I think the passion of Capri and Barbara is compelling, but the fact remains that there isn't a better plan or idea in place to get us started on the road to clean, renewable energy that works than Cape Wind. Is it perfect? No. Is it privately funded? Yes (last I checked, it's America, and that's OK). Will it mess up the view? Yes. But I'm prepared to accept those shortcomings, because the alternative is far worse.
Again, thanks for the time & replies to my postings. And Capri & Barbara, again, I certainly respect your positions, but as Ron Burgendy said, "Agree to Disagree"!
Is this a popularity contest or search for the truth?
"but let's try it somewhere else. Let's not do the first one in a place which is not only a tourist magnet worth extraordinary dollars to us, but, in my opinion, is a national treasure." The words of a very smart man from Utah.
Please send fcuta14 your and Peck's degrading and sexual remarks to Magical from a year ago.
Sorry! I forgot that you deleted them all when you left CCT.
What short memories we have. I may be bipolar but I am not a hypocrite.
Would you please repost those comments.
I just knew you were a sharp cookie, and I recognized that it might be confusing to you for me to provide viewpoints, (stop the Cape Wind Boondoogle/Go deep, Jim). Thank you for inviting me to clarify my position.
I’m a wind energy agnostic who has established my priorities related to this issue.
A. To spare Nantucket Sound from industrialization.
B. Offer to assist as one of her escorts to long-term meaningful preservation WITH heritage trades, public safety, wildlife, historical integrity, magnificent beauty, ecological and economic values retained.
Due to my generosity, (yours, too), in the form of my high-jacked tax dollars, (wind interests may be welcome to yours), wind towers are coming at us. For me, this is about damage control through steering this proposal out of Nantucket Sound. It is not for sale, lease, or to be devalued to the price of a strip mall, in my personal opinion.
Unlike you, I'm not prepared to accept Cape Wind's shortcomings and false promises.
I think you’ve been less than up front, and arrived with a Cape Wind playbook, too.
Just out of curiosity, if I deleted all the comments to my wind blog when I "left" CCT, how do you explain the presence of my wind blog posts and comments to them at this site? Don't take my word for it, look for yourself (while indulging in a healthy serving of crow).
Much has changed in the last year, although this apparently does not extend to you. You remain stuck in a dynamic of yore, the bellicose shouting match. Many of us, including other opponents of the wind farm not incidentally, have decided to move past the shouting match and have conversations with one another.
Is this something you're capable of, or do you prefer to continue belittling people like Barbara Hill and Chuck Kleekamp when they respond to your questions in a helpful manner?
Keep in mind also that we live in a part of the country where old Yankee notions of thrift still prevail. Squandering anything is considered anathema.
You can add these to the list of your outstanding questions:
Why are the massive citizen funded subsidies pledged to wind developers’ not indexed to reduction in carbon emissions? (rhetorical, indexing would eliminate subsidies).
What type of transformer oil would be contained, (40,000 gallons), in the ESP?
What savings, (rhetorical, none), would Cape Wind provide to electrical consumers?
What alternatives to the Cape Wind project would offer similar benefits with fewer impacts to this important environmental and economic resource area?
Where is the 3 years worth of bird studies that US Fish and Wildlife has demanded?
Will the oil spill fatality charts showing a spill with greater than 90% chance of hitting shorelines be considered as pertains to the threat this poses to wildlife?
Which, if any, energy plants would the project offset if it came on line?
What would the back-up requirements be for this intermittent source of power?
What bonds would Cape Wind post to protect the public and cover the need to dismantle the wind plant either at end of life or if there were significant problems during the life of the project?
What is the value of the bonds Cape Wind would post to cover necessary maintenance?
Why won't Cape Wind provide historical wind speed data from their data collection tower?
For more food for thought by Ted Williams: http://www.flyrodreel.com/index.php/page/blog/?p=206
P-r-o-p-a-g-a-n-d-a is what serves the purpose of a government no longer exporting Legos.
Danes go cold on wind farms
ALISTAIR THOMSON IN COPENHAGEN
http://business.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=605&id=1613772006
"While many countries around the world are clamouring to buy Danish wind turbines, Denmark's government is finding it difficult to convince its own population to accept an increase in the domestic use of the green technology.
Describing turbines as "poorly located, noisy and unsightly", a number of local authorities, backed by grass-roots campaigners, are rejecting plans for new wind farms.
The situation has not been helped by a 2004 decision - the architect of which was Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish prime minister - to remove state subsidies for wind power, leaving it to market forces.
Two years on, the ruling Social Liberal-Conservative coalition appears ready to accept its mistake but, despite intense government efforts to promote clean technology, local opposition to a new wave of wind-power construction has reached fever pitch. Leading politicians say that is potentially catastrophic for the Danish energy sector."