Wind Farmer's Almanac

Mark your calendar

Four upcoming events of interest to wind farm aficionados --

-- on Wednesday July 12, the Massachusetts Office of Environmental Affairs will hold two public information sessions to allow officials from the state and Patriot Renewables, LLC to describe the proposed South Coast offshore wind project and public participation in the environmental impact review process.

The first session will be held at 2 p.m. at Fairhaven Town Hall on Center Street in -- you guessed it -- Fairhaven, followed by the second public forum at 7 p.m. at Greater New Bedford Regional Vocational Technical High School, 1121 Ashley Boulevard.

-- also on the evening of July 12, candidates for governor will debate environmental issues at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, at 7 p.m. in the Kresge Auditorium. The debate, free and open to the public, is sponsored by the Massachusetts League of Environmental Voters, the Environmental League of Massachusetts, the Appalachian Mountain Club and the Sierra Club. To reserve a seat, call 617-742-8822 or send an email to info@mlev.org. Kresge Auditorium is a low-domed building immediately behind and to the left of the Stratton Student Center at 84 Mass. Ave.

-- and on the following Wednesday, July 19, the National Public Radio show Justice Talking  will host a debate on the future of offshore wind from the beautiful Chatham Bars Inn on the Outer Cape in -- you guessed it -- Chatham. Participants in the debate have yet to be determined and the segment will be broadcast at 3:45 p.m. on Aug. 7, according to the Justice Talking website. Tickets to attend the recording of the debate cost $25 and can be reserved by calling radio station WCAI in Woods Hole at 508-548-9600.

Leave a comment »

A Declaration of Energy Independents

When in the course of modern events it becomes necessary for one people to assume greater control of their energy needs through indigenous sources provided by the Creator, a decent respect for humanity compels them to explain the rationale for their decision.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all sources of energy are not created equal, that some are endowed with indisputable flaws, most especially fossil fuels. Among these are a fearsome toll in lives, restraints on liberty where oil is the only source of wealth, and the thwarting of happiness through ever-rising energy costs.

That to secure freedom from dependence on foreign energy, governments are instituted by men and women, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed and not from lobbyists in the fossil-fuels industry.
That whenever any form of government proves resistance to these truths, it is the right of the People to articulate that government's failure and advocate for new policies, based on the principle of self-reliance upon which our Nation was founded.

Prudence will dictate that governments long established should not change for light and transient causes, such as a sudden surge in oil prices. And all experience has shown that humanity is more disposed to tolerate fossil fuels while their financial costs are modest, rather than right themselves by abolishing the dependence to which they are accustomed.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these United States, extending back more than three decades to the Arab oil embargo of 1973-74, and such is now the necessity which constraints them through an even worse dependence on foreign energy than during the embargo.
The history of our Nation's over-reliance on fossil fuels from abroad is strewn with missed opportunities and repeated folly, all having in direct object the establishment of something akin to addiction for our citizens.

To prove this, let these facts be submitted to a candid world increasingly resentful of our presence:
We account for only 5 percent of the earth's population, yet consume one-quarter of its energy;
We refuse to increase fuel efficiency for sports utility vehicles through a legal loophole which maintains the fiction that most SUVs are purchased for agricultural endeavors;
We provide lobbyists from the fossil fuels industry with undue sway in crafting energy policy, often in secretive enclaves;
We quarter more than 100,000 of our soldiers in the Middle East for the second war in as many decades to ensure the flow of oil to this country, where much of it will be squandered. The cost of these conflicts has been a horrific toll in lives and injuries, widespread devastation, environmental havoc and economic upheaval;
We have long ignored the example of the Danes, the Germans, the English, the Spanish and the Irish, among other peoples, who are embracing wind power and other renewables rather than the failed energy policies of the past;

At every stage we have petitioned for remedies; our petitions have been ignored or derided. Nor have we been wanting in our respect for our system of governance. Accordingly, we have warned our legislators that their failure to act in their constituents' best-interests will likely end with their usurpation from office. They have been deaf to the voices of reason and environmental justice.

We, therefore, the representatives of a voting bloc known as Energy Independents, united in spirit across this Nation and transcending partisan divisions, solemnly declare that these United States ought to be, Free and Independent States; that they should sever allegiance to those nations from whom we purchase fossil fuels and who maintain despotic regimes over their citizenry; and as Free and Independent States, we have full power to provide for our energy needs, stop endless conflicts, seek alliances with nations worthy of our Founders' respect, establish commerce in renewable energy as a critical element in this endeavor, and do all other things which Independent States not beholden to sources of energy beyond their borders may do.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of a Higher Power, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Good Faith and our Sacred Future.

7 comments »

Did'ya hear about the one-armed fisherman ...?

 ... caught one this big!

Which brings to mind the whopper told by Charles Vinick of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound during last week's debate with Cape Wind's Mark Rodgers.

Vinick claimed that commercial fishermen working Nantucket Sound haul in "more than 50 percent of the value of their catch on Horseshoe Shoal."

Rodgers questioned this, pointing out that the Sound encompasses more than 550 square miles, compared to 24 square miles for Horseshoe Shoal where Cape Wind seeks to build its turbines  -- about 4 percent of Nantucket Sound.

The percentage plunges even further when measured by watersheet taken up by the project. "If Cape Wind is built, more than 99.9 percent of that 24 square miles will remain open watersheet, as it is today," Rodgers said.  

Commercial fishermen who support the Alliance have acknowledged "there are sections of that 24 square miles that are too shallow for the draggers," Rodgers said. He also cited a quote in a story I wrote for capecodtoday.com about US Senator Lincoln Chafee taking a charter boat cruise out to the shoal last month.

On the return trip to Falmouth, charter fishing boat captain Jim Tietje said that in more than a quarter of a century of working on Nantucket Sound, he has "never seen a dragger on Horseshoe Shoal."

Indeed, on the day of Chafee's fact-finding trip to an avian research barge and Cape Wind data tower, I counted all of a half-dozen fishing boats on the open water during a three-hour round trip -- and none within miles of us.

Moreover, I was told by a commercial fishing consultant last year that claims about specific areas where fish are caught should be taken with a grain of salt, since "area-specific" reports on catches do not exist. "We don't have that data," he told me.

If the Alliance or commercial fishermen who oppose Cape Wind can cite evidence to bolster Vinick's claim, I look forward to seeing it.  Otherwise, "that's a fishing tale, folks," as Rodgers put it.

8 comments »

For Gore's critics, inconvenient corroboration - from climate scientists

From a story published Tuesday by The Associated Press --

WASHINGTON -- The nation's top climate scientists are giving 'An Inconvenient Truth,' Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

The former vice president's movie -- replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets -- mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

According to the story, the AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by phone and email, among them "vocal skeptics of climate change theory." Most of those contacted have not read the book or seen the movie.

"But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels."

Here's what two of the scientists quoted in the story had to say --

"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right."

Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.

"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said. (blogger's note - this is how the quote reads in the AP story; presumably Corell is saying '... how thorough and accurate it was ...'). "After the presentation I said, 'Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."

Which is not to say the documentary got it right across the board, the AP reports, but "the tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal." Follow this link to read the story in its entirety.

More info on "An Inconvenient Truth" can be found at the website for the film, climatecrisis.net.

(photo credit, thespaceplace.com)

42 comments »

Think again, Congressman

Another dubious claim by US Rep. Bill Delahunt at the end of today's story in the Cape Cod Times about the Cape Wind provision in the Coast Guard funding bill --

"As I've said all along, this project is destined for litigation that will be interminable," Delahunt said.

Right, Congressman -- and it was just days ago you were saying that Gov. Mitt Romney was better suited to determine if Cape Wind might hamper navigational safety in Nantucket Sound instead of a more obvious arbiter -- the Coast Guard.

Delahunt also seems to have forgotten that Cape Wind's opponents have lost every legal challenge they've made, with more challenges sure to come and, assuming that justice prevails, more losses as well.

Seeing how Delahunt is hinting at frivolous litigation as a last resort, he might want to read this article published yesterday by the Norfolk Eastern Daily Press newspaper in Great Britain.

"A five-year wrangle over plans for two giant wind turbines in Norfolk ended yesterday with the go-ahead being given and taxpayers facing a huge legal bill due to 'unreasonable behaviour' by a council," the story reads.

"Breckland Council was told by a government inspector to pay costs -- which could total 100,000 pounds -- to the energy firm Ecotricity, which won a public inquiry and will now be allowed to construct the 100m tall turbines on land at Shipham, near Dereham," the story further states. "It was the first time in the UK that a council has had to pick up the tab in a windfarm dispute."

The Breckland Council, incidentally, is a municipal council -- which is why British taxpayers are footing that hefty legal bill for the councilors' poor judgment.

Seems the inspector mentioned in the story "gave the go-ahead (for the project) after it came to light on the first day of the inquiry, held in March, that safety concerns by Norwich International Airport (NIA) over how the turbines would affect radar had been dropped."

When Delahunt casually boasts of  "litigation that will be interminable" -- legalese for mucho billable hours -- here's one of his constituents who instead hears "taxpayers facing a huge legal bill."

(credit for cartoon, atla.org)

1 comment »

Delahunt's sudden surge of confidence in the Coast Guard

Interesting quote from Congressman Bill Delahunt in today's Cape Cod Times about Congress passing the Coast Guard funding bill without the poison pill amendments sought by Cape Wind's opponents.

Instead, "the Coast Guard commandant will decide whether the project would pose a navigational threat in Nantucket Sound," the story states, as written by Kevin Dennehy and David Schoetz.

Delahunt said "the Coast Guard is the right agency to judge navigational threats," wrote Dennehy and Schoetz, followed by this quote from Delahunt -- "I have great confidence in the Coast Guard. I just know they'll conduct a process that's thorough, that's exhaustive and that will be fair."

That allegedly being Delahunt's belief in Coast Guard competence and expertise, why would he want to give unilateral veto power over Cape Wind to that world-renown whiz at maritime safety, Mitt Romney? Perhaps it had to do with Delahunt's unstated concern that the Coast Guard will conduct its review in a thorough, exhaustive and fair manner -- and decide the project does not pose a threat to navigation. Hey, with a possible outcome like that, why take chances?

Keep in mind that Delahunt is someone you'd expect to have a little more faith in the Coast Guard than he apparently does beyond the exigencies of political reality at any given moment. After all, he served in the Coast Guard, as he can hardly pass an hour without reminding people, and also serves -- a word deserving of quotation marks -- as co-chairman of the House Coast Guard caucus.

And speaking of the Coast Guard funding bill approved by Congress, was Delahunt able to provide anything sought by the Coast Guard in his district (which is bordered almost entirely by coastline) -- or did he expend so much political capital trying to thwart Cape Wind that he has nothing else to show for his efforts?

Based on what's been posted on Delahunt's congressional website, it appears our dutiful congressman was not all that dutiful when it came to actually helping the Coast Guard, an agency assigned with the arguably important mission of saving lives.

As of this morning, there is only this cursory entry about the Coast Guard bill on the site, to be found at the "What's Comin' Up" link - "Monday: House votes on $8.3 billion Coast Guard authorization bill which includes$1.6 billion for fleet modernizations -- Coast Guard operates second oldest fleet in the world (North Korea, Iran and Italy have better navies). Bill also contains strengthened CG role in siting off shore wind project in Nantucket Sound."

Not to worry, Delahunt's website will probably be updated within days to provide his constituents with more details of his arduous work on the Coast Guard bill -- just as Delahunt's website was updated only days after I wrote this blog post back in April. And yes, I know, that was just a coincidence.

(photo credit, Vineyard Gazette)

10 comments »

Greatest threat to Nantucket Sound? According to the Alliance, it's not Cape Wind -- it's Cape Cod

First question out of the box during Friday night's debate between Cape Wind's Mark Rodgers and Charles Vinick of the Alliance to Protect to Nantucket Sound, from Rodgers to Vinick -- what is the greatest ecological threat to Nantucket Sound?

Vinick's answer, at least the initial part, came as no surprise - that would be Cape Wind, he responded, "not because Cape Wind is going to degrade every aspect of our fisheries" or "challenge every aspect of the environment." But the project brings risks that are difficult to evaluate and quantify, he added.

Then Vinick got to the interesting part. There are other "major threats" to Nantucket Sound, he said, "and over a long period of time, they are going to be, I think in many ways, more serious" than Cape Wind. Vinick cited two specific examples - eutrophication, which is water pollution caused by excessive plant nutrients, and run-off, as from roads, golf courses, farms, homes and businesses.

These are "very, very serious long-term problems," Vinick said, and the Alliance is working to mitigate them through water testing and research in its "Soundkeeper" program initiated last summer.

But if eutrophication and runoff are "more serious" long-term threats to Nantucket Sound as Vinick asserted, or at least in "many ways," why wouldn't an organization seemingly dedicated to protecting the Sound focus on these problems instead of turning nearly all its attention and resources to thwarting an offshore wind farm?

For those inclined who think that Vinick's remarks were anomalous, consider that much the same thing was asserted in an op-ed in the Providence Journal last October written by the Alliance's Susan Nickerson, under the headline, "Striving to give Nantucket Sound special protection."

After detailing decades-long efforts to conserve land on the Cape and protect the region's sole source aquifer, Nickerson wrote that "80 percent of the 12 billion gallons of wastewater generated each year on Cape Cod discharges into the watershed of coastal embayments -- making the magnitude of the problem painfully apparent." (Nickerson cited the Cape Cod Commission as her source).

"Much of the stress on the ecosystems of the near-shore waters can be traced to the growth of resident and tourist populations," Nickerson wrote, "and the services that this burgeoning activity demands. Generally increased use of the lands next to and in the near-shore waters has occurred without the equal development of the infrastructure to support these activities. It almost goes without saying (emphasis added) that the impacts of human development on the coastal and marine ecosystems -- on water quality, habitat viability, and ecosystem health -- easily stress these systems beyond their capacity to cope."

"What we are seeing today is that stresses to near-shore waters are evidenced offshore, as well, and the whole of Nantucket Sound is coming under increased environmental pressure," Nickerson wrote. "For example, weir fishermen in the area have noticed increasing amounts of algae fouling offshore nets, a sign that excess nutrients in coastal waters let noxious algae proliferate."

Then Nickerson made a huge leap, one the Alliance has tried to pull off for years, and that Vinick attempted again in the debate.  "As an additional stress, our coastal waters are being scouted for their development potential, as rich resources exist in the offshore environment and comparitively little land is available or feasible for private exploitation by such industries as energy development and finfish and shellfish farming," Nickerson wrote. "Clearly, Nantucket Sound is not exempt from such speculation, and it is in the realm of offshore governance that many decisions about the future of the Sound will be dictated."

But anyone familiar with the Alliance knows that the "realm of offshore governance" sought by Nickerson and Vinick is simply code for -- whatever it takes to kill Cape Wind.  And that lofty realm they seek, with provisions including an attempt to ban offshore wind turbines within 1.5 miles of shipping lanes, a governor's veto in the hand of a staunch Cape Wind opponent, and federal stop-work orders on wind farms under construction in the Midwest -- does absolutely nothing to protect Nantucket Sound from, as Vinick said in the debate, "more serious" threats than Cape Wind.

If the Alliance were serious about protecting Nantucket Sound, beyond the figleaf of a Soundkeeper program funded with a miniscule fraction of their deep-pocketed donors' largesse, it could propose something which if ever enacted, would indisputably improve water quality in the Sound -- closing all the golf courses on the Cape and islands.

This would help Nantucket Sound and the water across the region as a whole, for that matter. Then again, it would also doom the Alliance's fund-raising.

(photo credit -- of golf carts, phototravels.net; of traffic-clogged Bourne Bridge, volpe.dot.gov)

13 comments »

Scientific panel bolsters key piece of global warming evidence

... that so-called "hockey stick" you've heard so much about in recent years, as shown at left from a graph accompanying this story in today's Boston Globe.

"A signature piece of evidence for global warming -- a compilation of data showing that a sharp rise in temperatures made the late 20th century the warmest period in 1,000 years -- is probably true, a national panel of scientific specialists concluded yesterday," writes the Globe's Beth Daley.

(credit for graphic, Boston Globe)

10 comments »

Spring comes to Buzzards Bay, 2006

... and here was one of its few sunny days. Those are my kids, Billy and Emma, in case you're wondering.

The elegant wind turbine behind them will be formally dedicated tomorrow at 11 a.m. and I'm one of many people looking forward to the ceremony.

That structure to the far left? Used to be a windmill.

6 comments »

Alliance stops grinding teeth long enough to respond

... with this statement posted on their website today. The last two paragraphs stand out:

"The Alliance raised the issue of navigational risk and interference two years ago ... " -- as though this had somehow managed to escape the notice of everyone else involved in the permitting process -- " ... after Cape Wind produced a report from one of its consultants declaring that navigational risk could be managed within Nantucket Sound.

"An ensuing navigational risk assessment report by a marine safety expert at the McGowan Group criticized the Cape Wind report and concluded that the proposed project is 'incompatible with the needs of marine transportation' in Nantucket Sound and poses unacceptable risks due to its proximity to active shipping lanes," the Alliance states.

Not surprisingly, the Alliance neglects to mention that the McGowan Group is one of their consultants. In effect, they hired a consultant to criticize Cape Wind's consultant (anyone looking for consulting work on dueling consultants, please let me know).

In the Alliance press release, CEO Charles Vinick is quoted as saying - "We don't believe that Cape Wind can pass a navigational risk test. Based on the McGowan Group's assessment, studies coming out of the UK that show radar interference from wind turbines, and strong local opposition by those directly affected by navigational risk, Cape Wind has good reason to be concerned that they will not meet public safety standards."

I'll give Mr. Vinick the benefit of a doubt that he personally believes this, but as for the Alliance as a whole, evidence abounds that its core membership -- and financial backers -- believe no such thing. If anything, they appear to believe just the opposite -- which explains their actions in recent months. If Cape Wind is doomed to fail the regulatory review, why spend millions trying to derail it?

The answer is obvious: the Alliance is horrified at the possibility that Cape Wind will pass muster on navigation, birds and everything else. That's why they tried to provide that well-known expert on navigational safety -- Mitt Romney -- with veto power over the project.

1 comment »