Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

What is the Cause of the Parts Shortages in the Wind Industry?

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

23 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 23
August 29, 2007
<br /><span><font color="#1f509c"><strong>Cliff Carroll </strong></font></span><div><strong>Date Posted:<br /><span><font color="#1f509c">August 29, 2007 </font></span></strong></div><div class="commentBody"><p><strong>Perhaps a better use of subsidies would be to give the existing polluting plants a tax incentive to refit to&nbsp;new clean technologies that are consistant and dependable. What good&nbsp;are all these renewables if we do not correct the true source of the pollution.&nbsp;</strong></p><p><strong>&nbsp;For example, here on Cape Cod, our power about 33% is from an oil fired power plant. The majority of our electricity, about 67% comes from the Plymouth Nuclear Power plant.&nbsp; If the Cape Wind project were to be built, it is believed that the oil fired fuel plant would have to run at a higher output to be able to be the back up power for the intermittent power from the wind farm.</strong></p><p><strong>If this is the case, what is the sense in making the oil fired plant operate at a higher capacity? How does this clean our air? It has been estimated that the Cape Wind project will be north of $1.4 billion by the year 2012.&nbsp; It has been estimated that it would cost about $700 million to refit the canal plant. Wouldn't it make more sense to give a tax incentive or subsidy to the owner of that plant to encourage the retrofitting to a cleaner technology?</strong></p><p>&nbsp;</p><br /></div>
Comment
2 of 23
August 29, 2007
<p><strong>I believe the article posted by Miss Dukin was published in both Business Week and Forbes.&nbsp; I had no idea that these 2 reputable magazines were nimbys. It also never occured to me that they were payed hacks for the evil oil industry.</strong></p><p><strong>Come on guys, lets face it,&nbsp; the truth hurts. The death of the LIPA project combined with the experience of europe are now bringing the truth of the economics of offshore wind to the surface.</strong></p><p><strong>Projects like Cape Wind and LIPA will go the way of the Hindenburg.&nbsp; Remember when blimps were the future of air travel? Don't get mad at Miss Durkin for delivering the message, just get real about the true cost of this soon to be out dated energy source.</strong></p>
Comment
3 of 23
August 29, 2007
<p>It really puts sand in my bathing suit when people hold forth about SUSTAINABLE energy solutions,stating that they gooble up other peoples money,that they aren't viable,BLAH BLAH BLAH.The established energy Consortium/oilogarchys exist on OPM(other people money).We finance wars,subsidize canal building,provide interest free loans to Cos with billion dollar profits(profit is not bad,but they should pay back to the taxpayer what they borrowed when they can afford to).we provide Gov't land for uranium mines,spend millions/billions on R+D for decommisioning of nuke plants.We finance high tension,high voltage transmission lines for private companies to ship electricity across the country,then give them a tax break after they pocket billions in enron style price manipulation.</p><p>THEN SOME LOUDMOUTH SHOOTS OF ABOUT WASTING CASH SUBSIDIZING SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS-WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER WASTED CASH????????</p><p>WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER MORE DANGEROUS -A SPUTTERING TURBINE OR A CORE MELTDOWN?</p><p>WHAT IS WORSE? 18 DEAD A DAY IN CHINESE COAL MINES(THEY ARE COMMISIONING ONE COAL PLANT A WEEK FOR THE NEXT SEVEN YEARS-PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE!) OR INCENTIVES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION?</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
Comment
4 of 23
August 29, 2007
<p>Barbara, if there are really these issues the manufacturer would have to improve their product or face bankruptcy (History is littered with examples).&nbsp; This is the beauty of the market system.</p><p>Rt, your focus on the negatives is misguided.&nbsp; I&nbsp;agree with you and&nbsp;don't like the use of &quot;other people's money&quot; or subsidies.&nbsp; However, business are making investments in this area not based on subsidies.&nbsp; Businesses invest because there is the potential for profit to be made -&nbsp; Period.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
Comment
5 of 23
August 29, 2007
<p>Oh Yea I forgot in my rant to mention the issue with Japans nuclear plant &nbsp;2 months ago!!</p><p>Have we all forgotten Three Mile Island and Chernoble(SP?) and all the long term issues and no real solutions to deal with hazzrd waste that was realeased into the atmosphere and ground. &nbsp;As for a wind turbine catching fire...yes that could or did happen but who would be really effected by that on the same scale? Its all self contained in a remote location. </p><p><strong>If&nbsp;we are really talking about energy producing machines having issues and their relationship to cost &amp;&nbsp;the enviroment. Then the whole process needs to&nbsp;looked at!</strong></p><p>Gas &amp; oil pipe lines leaking or catching on fire happen a&nbsp;thousand fold to wind turbine related issues. <strong><u>One has to look at the outcome when it does happen. If a wind turbine fails, or even say catches on&nbsp;fire does it release CO2 into the atmosphere or cause radiation&nbsp;illnesses? No!!&nbsp;</u> </strong>It just stops producing energy until fixed.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
Comment
6 of 23
August 29, 2007
<p>WOW!! &nbsp;I see the well funded oil &amp; gas companies have reached even further by now hiring people to post stupid and&nbsp;MISLEADING information to try and surpress R.E. further!! One might think after reading the two entries above that R.E. is a scam and we all should continue to be quiet and do as we are told.....like before! ALL forms of machinery will have problems. Just look at oil &amp; gas. Has everyone forgot about EXXON and their little &quot;boating issue&quot; several years back??!</p><p>**SEE Newsweek July 07' for highly funded programs by the oil industry to put a negative spin on R.E and global warming! Exxon alone spent over 19 MILLION to back na sayer just like these two. They are getting paid to put doubt in the minds of the people.</p><p>It's appauling to see the lenghts they will go to so we can keep them rich!</p><p>The REAL question is why are we (THE WORLD) still buying into this crap! It should be taken into account all the Trillions of dollars that we (our children &amp; their children) will have to spend to clean up this mess. <strong><u>If that were the case then R.E. would then be cheaper than the oil/gas!!&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</u></strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;THINK OF THE FUTURE AND ASK CAN WE HONESTLY KEEP GOING LIKE THIS ??</p>
Comment
7 of 23
August 29, 2007
It's not just the misrepresentation of reliability, the RE business is rife with exaggerations, half-truths, and lies. Ethanol isn't as good as they say it is. The wind "industry" doesn't produce as much electricity as they say it does. Solar isn't as good an investment as they would lead you to believe. Yet tax money is being given to individuals as if all this were true. A textbook example of how to take money from people who don't want to give it to you.

I love the concept of renewable energy. I fear the use of "other people's money" has led to excesses that will turn the general public away from the idea (if they find out it was a scam).
Comment
8 of 23
August 29, 2007
<p>There is more than a shortage of wind turbine parts, 8,000 per turbine, presenting issues for wind developers.&nbsp;&nbsp;Once the 8,000 parts are assembled, there are 8,000 potential problems per turbine created.</p><p>Business Week:&nbsp; August 24, 2007&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; line-height: 120%" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 120%"><font face="Times New Roman">'The Dangers of Wind Power'</font></span></p><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 120%"><font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font></span> <p style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; line-height: 120%" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman"><em><span style="font-size: 14.5pt; line-height: 120%">&quot;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.&quot;</span></em></font></p><font face="Times New Roman"><em></em><span style="font-size: 14.5pt; line-height: 120%">&nbsp;</span></font><span style="font-size: 14.5pt; line-height: 120%"><font face="Times New Roman">http://www.windaction.org/news/11519</font></span> <p>&nbsp;</p>
Comment
9 of 23
August 30, 2007
<span><span style="font-size: 7.5pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana">Barbara Durkin is spreading misinformation, above, period.&nbsp; It matters not who she may be representing in your quest to spread such misinformation, the fact is that her litany of incorrect information and intentionally misrepresented facts is compounded and cleverly couched in quotes from so-called authorities that obfuscate the actual facts in the wind industry today:</span><span style="font-size: 7.5pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana">1) 8000 parts in a wind turbine sounds large, but is very small relative to the number of parts that exist in conventional power plants that are equally prone to failure, just like the parts in your automobile or television.</span><span style="font-size: 7.5pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana">2) Wind turbines produce as much energy as they are intended to produce, because wind turbines generate electricity only when the wind is blowing at certain speeds, anti-wind groups often point to this as a flaw, when in fact wind turbines are specifically designed and engineering to generate electricity in this manner, and the economics of wind turbine projects are specifically based on realistic expectations for periods when the wind is blowing at maximum rated conditions, for periods when the wind is not blowing, and all points in between.&nbsp; Wind turbines are designed, engineering, and operated with that in mind.</span><span style="font-size: 7.5pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana">3) And people who claim that a power plant needs to be built every time a wind project is completed is simply speaking from an ignorant point of view, this is clearly not happening -- wind projects needs to be studied before they can be integrated into electric grids, yes, but it is absolutely false to claim that every wind turbine needs to be backed up by a conventional power plant.</span><span style="font-size: 7.5pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana">Every wind turbines that is constructed and begins to operate produces electricity that often offsets the need to run fossil fuel power plants that otherwise produce emissions into our atmos</span><span style="font-size: 7.5pt; font-family: Verdana">phere.&nbsp; So yes, wind turbines are making a difference everywhere that they are built and operated.&nbsp; Denmark receives a substantial portion of its electricity each and every year from wind power -- same for Germany and Spain and many other countries.&nbsp; The U.S. is farther behind, but catching up.&nbsp; And everyone will benefit, not just in terms of environmental benefits, but in real consumer savings due to reduced use of natural gas to generate electricity, which will in turn reduce demand for and volatility of natural gas prices, ultimately savings consumers in the U.S. substantially on their home heating bills.&nbsp; </span><span style="font-size: 7.5pt; font-family: Verdana">Want more information on these topics ?&nbsp; Look to documented, well-supported sources of information, not the claim and rants of the anti-wind contingents that Barbara Durkin and Cliff Carroll either intentionally or un-intentionally align themselves with in their postings above.</span><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">&nbsp;</font></span>
Comment
10 of 23
August 30, 2007
<p>To B.D. &amp; C.C.,</p><p>So my question to you two is would you be so opposed to wind if it were built and financed w/o subsides and had a storage &quot;system&quot; *(see&nbsp; Beacon Power high speed flywheel energy storage) for the erratic energy it captured? If it were able to produce mid-level amounts&nbsp;of electricity in multiple locations and NOT be on 400&quot; towers?&nbsp;Then be combined&nbsp;to another renewable energy source&nbsp;solar cells so to maxamize overall efficiency? what if this new design wasn't placed in pre determined places so it would fail from the start because of high cost w/ transmission costs? </p><p>would you then embrace wind as a replacment of the oil/gas companies??!</p><p>I see in all your notes that neither you acknowledge all the serious issues and huge enviromental disasters that the oil/gas/coal powered co's have made or the fact that they have been given subsides ever since they were first put into production. Does that not count just because it happend a long time ago??</p><p>All I keep reading&nbsp;is quotes taken from speaches and no real facts. Just words. I&nbsp;hear only wind is bad and not as predictable as we once thought so to hell with it and any other &quot;green&quot; R.E. All I really see is you don't want to help pay (taxes) for new technologies to help get us off oil.</p><p>Last question...why would two big Na Sayers and doubter join a renewable energy online info source and just write in to bash it????????!!</p><p>truly confused,</p><p>Marty&nbsp;</p>
Comment
11 of 23
August 30, 2007
<p><strong><em><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana">Captains of industry as well as&nbsp;Physics Professors acknowledge the&nbsp;wind&nbsp;craze farce, Mr. Carroll.&nbsp; Thank you.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span></em></strong></p><strong><em><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana">Howard C. Hayden, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Connecticut</span></em></strong><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana">:</span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana">&ldquo;In recent years, the little country Denmark has gained a certain amount of fame with its wind turbines. No, they don&rsquo;t get much electricity from them. They sell them to suckers.&rdquo;</span> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">&lsquo;<strong>Put not thy faith in the Princes of Wind&rsquo; </strong></font></p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">&nbsp;</font> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">Howard C. Hayden, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Connecticut</font></font></p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">&nbsp;</font><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">Excerpt: </font></font><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana">&ldquo;In Cervantes&rsquo; comical <em>Don Quijote de la Mancha,</em> the most famous escapade of our hero was his attack on a windmill that he mistook for a sword-wielding giant. Modern armchair engineers with equal wisdom mistake windmills for giant free-energy machines.&rdquo;</span> <p><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana"><a href="http://www.energyadvocate.com/den_post.htm" target="_blank">http://www.energyadvocate.com/den_post.htm</a>&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana">&nbsp;</span></p><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana"><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">Neils Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries: <br /><br />&ldquo;In green terms windmills are a mistake and economically they make no sense&hellip;&rdquo;<br /><br />Aase Madsen, an MP who chairs energy policy in the Danish Parliament:<span>&nbsp; </span><br /><br />&ldquo;For our industry it has been a terribly expensive disaster.&rdquo;</font></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;</p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">P.S.&nbsp; The Princes of wind, oil, gas, coal, and nuclear are indivisible.&nbsp; </font></p></span><p>&nbsp;</p><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana"></span>&nbsp;
Comment
12 of 23
August 30, 2007
<p>The criticism that using wind-powered electric generation increases the use of fossil-fuel powered generation makes no sense.&nbsp; While there is a need for backup sources (yes, the wind is not under our control and does change in intensity, at least at ground level), that means that we need to develop additional technologies for storing the energy to do load leveling.&nbsp; The wind can also be tapped at high altitudes, where it is both stronger (up to 700 mph) and more consistent.</p><p>&nbsp;Wind is not a sole answer, but is an important part of a rational system for energy production.</p>
Comment
13 of 23
August 30, 2007
<p><strong>Miss Durkin,</strong></p><p><strong>Your points are well thought out and your sources are impeccable. How can anyone reasonably question the validity of your arguments when the heads of this industry themselves are ackowledging what a farce this is?</strong></p><p><strong>Well Done!!</strong></p>
Comment
14 of 23
August 30, 2007
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">Follow the money&hellip;</font></p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">&nbsp;</font> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">A point of clarification regarding my last post; and the reference in Barron&rsquo;s to &ldquo;Immelt, an engineer.&rdquo;<span>&nbsp; </span>Jeffrey Immelt, the engineer, is also the CEO and Chairman of the Board of GE, operating in more than 100 countries, employing over 300,000 people, with revenues of over $131 billion in 2002.<span>&nbsp; </span></font></font></p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">&nbsp;</font> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">Immelt concedes that he understands the flaws behind the premise that wind turbines provide any &ldquo;solution.&rdquo; GE is responding to demand by supplying the acknowledged placebo, wind turbines.<span>&nbsp; </span></font></font></p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">&nbsp;</font> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">Florida Power and Light Group, the parent of FPL Energy, paid no income tax in 2002 and 2003, according to Citizen&rsquo;s for Tax Justice, despite having revenues of $2.2 billion during those years. The FPL Group invested heavily in wind energy during those years.</font></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;</p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">Flemming Nissen head of development at West Danish generation company ELSAM (one of Denmark&rsquo;s largest energy utilities): <br /><br />&ldquo;Increased development of wind turbines does not reduce Danish CO2 emissions&rdquo;</font></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;</p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">It's not about clean air, it's about subsidies, public debt.&nbsp; Public subsidy of wind energy is not tied by index to reduction in CO2 emissions by policy.</font></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;</p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">Even if policy was in place that highlighted the &quot;efficacy&quot; of wind power, e no precedent&nbsp;demonstrates that wind power is any &quot;solution.&quot;</font></p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">Great points, Mr. Carroll, thank you.&nbsp; </font></p></font>
Comment
15 of 23
August 30, 2007
<p>You are following the money, rt.&nbsp; They have us fearful and prepared to do anything, most importantly, to part with our money.&nbsp; This is about a shift of wealth of multi billions of dollars from the public to GE, AWEA, so that their coffers are filled.&nbsp;&nbsp;Fossil fuel tycoon, Jim Gordon, presenter of the Chelsea, MA., proposal, has&nbsp;plans for a diesel fired fuel plant next to&nbsp;an elementary school, and where the&nbsp;asthma rates are highest in the state.&nbsp;&nbsp;Public subsidy of a faith based initiative, wind power, is such a fraud.&nbsp; I'm not paid, I'm outraged.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"><strong><span style="color: green">Thomas G. Donlon</span></strong><strong><span style="font-weight: normal; color: green">&nbsp;May 16, 2005, issue of Barrons:<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &quot;</span>It is shameful that GE, a highly profitable company, has decided to take advantage of faulty federal and state wind energy policies by producing turbines for &quot;wind farms.&quot;<span>&nbsp; </span>As Thomas G. Donlon pointed out in his column in the May 16, 2005, issue of Barrons:<span>&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>&quot;In addition to environmental damage..., wind power has an economic flaw that any GE engineer ought to be able to imagine: Since no human power can turn the wind on and off when it's wanted for electricity, every bit of wind power capacity must be backed up by another generating source...Immelt, an engineer, understands this but he provided the executive's counter argument: The customers want it, so it's GE's job to produce it.&quot;<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>Barrons<span>&nbsp; </span></span></strong></font></font><p>Enron&nbsp;started in the wind industry in the Altamont Pass CA.&nbsp; <br /><br /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
Comment
16 of 23
August 31, 2007
Well said, Jeffery. In colorado, Xcel energy is rapidly expanding their wind production capacity because it's good business sense. In the winter people who pay &quot;extra&quot; for wind power were actually saving money compared to regular rate payers because NG prices were higher. That really opened a lot of eyes around the state. The above disparaging remarks are rubbish. The LIPA project was killed due to cost, but it was acknowleged this was due to a lack of expertise in offshore construction. It was noted that this is not an issue in europe, where there are many offshore wind farms. Wind isn't a silver bullet, but more and more states and utilities are realising that it's an excellent way to keep their costs down.
Comment
17 of 23
September 5, 2007
<p>Why is it that&nbsp; the people who respond to any criticism of renewable energy do so with semi-literate,&nbsp; bad mannered rants? Doing so makes them come across as zealots who don't give a damn about&nbsp; evidence, they just want to shout down the opposition.</p><p>But back to the topic, it isn't just a shortage of components that is causing problems for wind power. Rumour, I admit, albeit from an engineer who should know, tells me that wind turbines in the UK are suffering from premature failures as those bits they can get fall apart.</p><p>I offer this as something for someone with more time to follow up.</p><p>The dunderhead who cannot spell Chernobyl is perhaps too young to have seen what really happened at Three Mile Island (TMI). Both of these accidents happened as a result of operator error. In the case of TMI the only lasting damage was to wreck an expensive power station.</p><p>Throwing in the recent Japanese experience is risible. A nasty earthquake hit the place. Some drums of waste fell over. No one was hurt. No serious damage was done to the power station itself. This was the sort of accident that, were we to believe the anti-nuc;lear brigade, would have brought about the end of civilisation as we know it.</p><p>It is a long time ago, I know, but I once visited a &quot;wind farm&quot; in Colorado. Not long after I went by as nasty wind blew the lot down.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
Comment
18 of 23
September 5, 2007
<p>Cape Wind has been sited by private developer in Nantucket Sound. Special interest language in the Energy Policy Act has paved the way for an ad hoc review, without a bidding process, and without rules in place that direct and manage alternative development of coastal waters, corrected link</p><p><a href="http://www.mvgazette.com/news/2006/04/21/wind_farm_favored.php" target="_blank">http://www.mvgazette.com/news/2006/04/21/wind_farm_favored.php</a></p>
Comment
19 of 23
September 5, 2007
<p>&nbsp;The most compelling arguments against the Cape Wind project, a proposed public safety threat, can be reviewed here, corrected link:&nbsp; </p><p><a href="http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?id=297&amp;letter_id=1208243361" target="_blank">http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?id=297&amp;letter_id=1208243361</a></p>
Comment
20 of 23
September 5, 2007
<p>My opposition to the Cape Wind project originally centered on adverse impact to the aesthetic value unique to this area that I have enjoyed for many years as a Cape and Islands' tourist.</p><p><br />I have been investigating the details related to the Cape Wind project for five years. Cape Wind has been sited by private developer in Nantucket Sound. Special interest language in the Energy Policy Act has paved the way for an ad hoc review, without a bidding process, and without rules in place that direct and manage alternative development of coastal waters.</p><p><br />There are use conflicts presented by the Cape Wind project that the general public, focused on a class war, does not understand.<br />While many acusations are hurled at Senator Kennedy, he is acting in the interest of the public as a circumspect, and prudent leader who recognizes the threats that Cape Wind represents. He has a depth of understanding that&nbsp;few have&nbsp;regarding Cape Wind.</p><p>The antics of industry friends in high places:<a href="http://www.mvgazette.com/news/2006/04/21/wind..." target="_blank">http://www.mvgazette.com/news/2006/04/21/wind...</a> </p><p><br />Three thousand Massachusetts Fishermen represented by the Massachusetts Fishermen's Partnership are opposed to this project that they consider to present a &quot;taking threat&quot; of their fishing grounds.</p><p><br />Mass Audubon&rsquo;s testimony on bird kill by Cape Wind:<br />&ldquo;By utilizing other bird mortality data provided in the DEIS, Mass Audubon staff scientists arrived at avian mortalities that ranged from 2,300 to 6,600 collision deaths per year.&rdquo;</p><p><br />David Cottingham, Executive Director of the Marine Mammal Commission, the federal agency established under the Marine Mammal Protection Act:<br />&ldquo;There is little doubt that activities associated with the proposed action, particularly the use of pile drivers for tower construction will result in the taking of marine mammals by harassment.&rdquo;</p><p><br />The most compelling arguments against the Cape Wind project, a proposed public safety threat, can be reviewed here:</p><p><a href="http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userl..." target="_blank">http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userl...</a> </p><p>The devil lives in the details of the one of the world&rsquo;s largest proposed construction projects under an ad hoc review.</p>
Comment
21 of 23
September 14, 2007
The Iraq Oil War costs almost $2,000,000,000 every week.&nbsp; Enough said.
Comment
22 of 23
February 3, 2008
NRDC 2/1/06: &ldquo;Whatever the various merits of solar, wind, nuclear, et al, <br />they have nothing to do with reducing our oil dependence.&rdquo;<br /><br />Glenn Schleede:<br /><br />&quot;US Department of Energy (DOE) and DOE's National Renewable Energy &quot;Laboratory&quot; (NREL) -- using our tax dollars -- has been highly successful in misleading the media, public, Congress and other federal and state regulators and legislators about the costs &amp; benefits of wind energy. The advocates have grossly overstated the benefits of wind energy, and greatly underestimated the environmental, ecological, economic, scenic and property value costs of wind energy.<br /><br />The false and misleading claims by the advocates have led to government policies, programs and regulations that are detrimental to the interests of consumers and taxpayers.&quot;
Comment
23 of 23
March 10, 2008
<p>I am so glad that common sense is going to prevail.</p><p>The misguided souls who back wind energy will one day awake with cognitive dissonance realizing they've been had by charlatans and snake oil salesman, selling wares of no more value than theoretical cold fusion.</p><p>The rest of you should do your level headed best to spread the the truth. </p><p>Stop the lies and waste of out tax dollars. You want to help the environment?&nbsp; Stop wasting our time/money/effort is supporting wind.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;'Tis a farce and a sham.</p><p>&quot;Wind Power...It Blows!&quot;</p><p>V/R,</p><p>Mike Winkler</p><p>Author of Wind Power...It Blows!</p>
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Carl Levesque

View Carl Levesque's Profile
About: Carl is Editor & Publications Manager at the American Wind Energy Association, where has worked since 2006. At AWEA he oversees AWEA's online and print publicat... more »

Advertise With Us

Endurance Wind Power Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Admirals Bank Rich Hessler Solar Business Development Solar Power International 2012 HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. HelioSage
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters