Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Outlook for US Offshore Wind Projects: Favorable with High Gusts

By Jennifer Zajac, SNL Energy
October 1, 2009   |   36 Comments

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.

36 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 36
October 1, 2009
Wind energy is about as useful as bald tires are in a snow bank; unless the objective is to efficiently kill birds and bats in the most expensive manner.

Or, unless you're a multinational corporation/institutional investor seeking tax sheltering opportunities, there are only adverse impacts realized.

C'mon, Mark Rodgers. Clean Power Now paid for the survey you tout indicates favorable reviews for Cape Wind. Tell the folks the truth, even without public subsidies, the price of Cape Wind energy is twice that of the current market.

440' land and sea guzzling steel towers are the antithesis of a solution to fossil fuel's harmful emissions.

Energy-Related Carbon Emissions (think steel manufacturing)

"Energy use in the industrial sector accounts for almost a third of U.S. carbon emissions. As is the case for energy consumption, manufacturing accounts for about 80 percent of the total industrial sector emissions."
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/efficiency/aceee_99_final.htm

"Energy used by manufacturers in the United States constitutes 27% of all energy use. It is responsible for a substantial part of the air pollution burden."

http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/energy/pdf/se218900311.pdf

Wind energy is neither reliable nor affordable

http://bjdurk.polls.newsvine.com/_news/2009/02/05/2400385-even-rich-nimbys-cant-afford-cape-winds-energy?mode=edit

Why Senator Kennedy fought Cape Wind:

http://bjdurk.polls.newsvine.com/_news/2009/09/19/3290497-cape-wind-faa-notice-of-presumed-hazard-

Wind energy industry jobs cost $1.4 million each

http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2009/09/03/3221195-wind-industry-green-jobs-cost-14-million-each

Wind energy is not reliable according to FERC

http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2009/01/26/2357728-wind-energy-is-not-reliable-according-to-ferc-

Enron's ghost carried in the wind

http://blogs.chron.com/lorensteffy/2008/06/enrons_ghost_ca_1.html
Comment
2 of 36
October 1, 2009
Barbara Durkin's (BD) who happens to live in Northboro MA (way far from Cape Cod) prior post "thoughtfully" poffers: "Wind energy is about as useful as bald tires are in a snow bank; unless the objective is to efficiently kill birds and bats in the most expensive manner."

It should be known that BD has been aligned with the 'Alliance to "Protect" Nantucket Sound' visa vi her personal & business associations with (recently deceased) Billionaire Richard Egan of EMC data storage industry giant...

He happens to have been a founding member & on the Board of Directors of the same offal cabal to which Durkin is aligned and has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight the CAPE WIND project.

The Egan family lives in the adjoing town to BD in Southboro MA and interestingly enough they own a south-facing second home on the exclusive gated community in the village of Osterville: Oyster Harbors. Where, (if you can only imagine) the majority of the fund raising opponents just happen to raise most of their $30,000,000.00 (thirty million dollars)... LIVE.

As does billionaire COAL & mining magnat Oxbow Industries Bill Koch live in the same gated exclusive community... Also, a founding member & BOD of the (I call them the) D'alliance.

To offer a take on BD's next sentence:

(Or,) "unless you're a multinational corporation/institutional investor seeking tax sheltering opportunities, there are only adverse impacts realized."...

Or, happen to be one of the well-to-do living in gated commiunties on Cape Cod.

And as usual you LIE BD: Clean Power Now DID NOT pay for the survey indicating favorable reviews for Cape Wind. Another well respected orgaization called CLEAN did who hired one of the most respected polling companies from DC.

And again YOU LIE & FEARMONGER as usual with your oft told LIE of the price of Cape Wind's energy.

And you know it.

I am the husband of CPN's Executive Director Barbara Hill... Who happens to tell the truth.
Comment
3 of 36
October 1, 2009
Barbara Durkin points out "Energy use in the industrial sector accounts for almost a third of U.S. carbon emissions." While that may be, that means over 2/3rds come from other sources. According to:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/Chapter1.htm
"Electricity generation consumes 40 percent of U.S. primary energy and is responsible for 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions"
As 40% is larger than "almost a third", going after the electricity generation sector seems a pretty good idea.

Life cycle analysis shows that coal generates 974 tonnes of CO2 per GWh of electricity generated, while wind generates only 20 tonnes of CO2 per GWh. That's including materials production (think steel), materials transportation, on-site construction and assembly, operation and maintenance, decommissioning and dismantlement.
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/pdf/fdm1092.pdf Figure 10.
I think going from 974 to 20 is a massive improvement.
Comment
4 of 36
October 2, 2009
A billion dollars to start with for a project with an effective capacity of maybe 100-150MW pretty much tells the story of this boondoggle.
No image available
Comment
5 of 36
Anonymous
October 2, 2009
Cape Wind Studies need to start from scratch!

Massachusetts is considering the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act. This act places commercial wind turbines in residential property location all around towns that border Buzzards Bay . The Oceans Act now fills Buzzards Bay with commercial wind turbines up to a location near Cape Wind. These turbines all around Bird and Ram Islands the chief nesting area of the Roseate Terns in North America.

Studies have been done of the birds of Buzzards Bay but have nor included the EPA promise of the retoration of the bird population from PCB exposure and the 2003 oil spill in Buzzards Bay !

We need a new public hearing that includes the big picture of what's going on!
No image available
Comment
6 of 36
Anonymous
October 2, 2009
http://www.epa.gov/aed/html/comm/posters/NACSETAC_Jayaraman_PSTR.pdf
No image available
Comment
7 of 36
Anonymous
October 2, 2009
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eoeeaterminal&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Land+Use%2C+Habitats+%26+Wildlife&L2=Natural+Resource+Damages+Assessment+and+Restoration+(NRD)&L3=MA+NRD+Damages+Assessments&sid=Eoeea&b=terminalcontent&f=eea_nrd_case_bouchard&csid=Eoeea
Comment
8 of 36
October 2, 2009
Carolyn Luce:

Thank you for your response.

Wind energy produces net negative benefits in environmental and economic terms---unless you're an institutional investor or multi-national corporation exploiting faulty policy that promotes privatization of public lands, increased taxes and electric rates.

Compliance with the Waxman Markey bill would require 180,000 1.5 MW wind turbines to generate 600 billion Kh that would consume millions of Acres of habitat and agricultural lands; 126 million tons of concrete, steel, fiberglass, and "rare earth" minerals at 700 tons per turbine; that require more concrete, steel, copper, and land for new transmission lines; and still more land, fuel and raw materials for intermittent wind, backup fossil fuel-fired generators.

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3759

In addition to pollutants generated by the manufacturing of steel for WTGs; with consideration that intermittent wind energy requires fossil fuel backup; wind turbines require concrete, alone responsible for much of the human-produced CO2.

Concrete pollutant releases (Short Tons/Year): CO=58,043; NO2=338,482; PM=74,623; PT=171,853; SO2=339,216; VOC=30,262

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/assistance/sectors/notebooks/stclglsnp2.pdf

Cambridge Energy Research Associates warns that we have to invest in WTG installation vessels, first, for offshore wind.

The DOE reports wind requires upgrades to ISO NE for 6.8 GW of wind energy (High) $3.9 billion. Secretary Bowles NYT's op-ed suggests we wrap this cost around the cost of wind energy.

URI and Mass Fishermen's Partnership study reflects a $13 million dollar loss to mobile gear fishing alone by Cape Wind "taking" of an Essential Fish Habitat.

And so on and on...
Comment
9 of 36
October 2, 2009
Clean Power Now paid for the Civil Society Institute Cape Wind survey if your wife, Executive Director of CPN, tells the truth, Stephen Peckham. Reporter Patrick Cassidy of Cape Cod Times asked her who paid for the Civil Society poll in the teleconference on this subject in which I was participating. "We're still waiting for the bill", was Barbara Hill's response.

Clean Power Now and the Civil Society Institute are both clients of Attorney Matt Pawa. It's a small world.

My objection to Cape Wind, as a Cape and islands' tourist, was based on its siting and adverse impact on aesthetic values in Nantucket Sound, initially, in 2003. I now recognize, after 6 years of autonomous and independent research, that wind energy uses the business model of Enron, hypothetical future value accounting practices. And, that the handful of people who control the wind sector, an international cartel, hail from Enron.

In fact, GE bought out Enron Wind and asked for their money back as the value of this "asset" was not worth the price they paid.

MMS Cape Wind FEIS reference Appendix F:

"Given the estimated COST OF ENERGY IS $122/MWh, TWICE THAT OF THE CURRENT MARKET AND THIS IS AFTER THE FULL BENEFIT OF TAX AND RPS INCENTIVES, the prospects of entering a long-term purchase power contract would seem low."

Source:

http://www.mms.gov/offshore/AlternativeEnergy/PDFs/FEIS/Appendix%20F%20-%20Economic_Model.pdf

Minerals Management Service confirms in the Cape Wind DEIS and FEIS; and the U.S. EPA cites in their Cape Wind MMS FEIS comments that Cape Wind is "not economically viable";

"Green is Green" as chief counsel and V.P of GE muses.

http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wind-energy-industry-tells-the-truth/

'Even rich NIMBYs can't afford Cape Wind's energy'

http://bjdurk.polls.newsvine.com/_news/2009/02/05/2400385-even-rich-nimbys-cant-afford-cape-winds-energy

Cape Wind is a step in the direction of Blackouts and fuel poverty.
Comment
10 of 36
October 2, 2009
Barabra D. must be insane! Over 7 GW added to US installed capacity in 2008! WOW.

That said all these posts show how "Cape project" sufferes from NIMBY. Keep an eye on Texas Coast or Mid Atlantic. Cape been in limbo for years.... How about Gulf of Maine?
Comment
11 of 36
October 2, 2009
Offshore Wind

Offshore wind, we see you coming here,
Europe is successful, there is no need to fear,
The mental block within us, holds back the wind outside,
To energize the coastlines, we should soon decide,
To make use of the given gifts that blow upon the sea,
Converting forces of the gusts to power our industry.

adrianakau2aol.com
Comment
12 of 36
October 2, 2009
Policy Expert - John Pisciotta, from Texas, affiliated with Texas Public Policy Foundation?

You need a sit down with Bill Peacock, the Economic Freedom Policy Analyst at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, the Austin-based research institute. And, H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., Senior Fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas, who contributed:

'Blowing In The Wind'

"But Is Renewable Energy Affordable Energy?"

"…Unfortunately, the greatest need for energy is along I-35 and the Texas Gulf Coast. At over $1 million a mile, it is very expensive to build the infrastructure necessary to get west Texas electricity to the customers who can use it.

And years of federal subsidies for wind-generated energy have not greatly reduced this cost."

"…Perhaps unaware of these realities, the Texas Legislature is considering an even larger role for renewable energy. One legislative proposal would increase the goal to 5,000 megawatts, another to 10,000 megawatts. Both proposals would be costly to Texas consumers, who would pay an additional $536 million annually for the increase to 5,000 megawatts, and $1.1 billion annually for the increase to 10,000 megawatts.
Renewable energy sources may be a sound alternative to fossil fuels someday – if and when it is, companies will bring it online without any encouragement from government. In the meantime, state policy makers should approach energy the way doctors approach a patient: First, do no harm."

http://www.texaspolicy.com/press_releases_single.php?report_id=795

'The True Cost of Wind Energy '

http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2008-10-PP18-truecostofwind-bp.pdf

Cape Wind has been in limbo for years as a "phantom project" using real taxpayer dollars, spent on hardware-specific studies being conducted by 17 permit reviewing agencies, to determine the cost v benefits of the "discontinued" GE 3.6 MW wind turbine.

That's insanity.
Comment
13 of 36
October 2, 2009
"America the Beautiful" should be the theme song of NIMBYs who have a right to aesthetic values, under the National Environmental Policy Act, that I attempt to defend, as a non-NIMBY, in the context of Cape Wind.

Some NIMBYs defend Sacred Land and religious freedom:

"In support of the Aquinnah and Mashpee Wampanoag Tribes, the United South and Eastern Tribes (USET), a coalition of 25 federally recognized Tribes, has objected to the proposed Cape Wind location due to unavoidable cultural, religious, and archaeological impacts. In a February 12, 2009, resolution,USET called upon the Department of Interior (DOI) to halt any further action on Cape Wind stating that the project "will forever change the physical integrity of the Sacred Site." The Aquinnah and Mashpee Wampanoag Tribes have long stated the project would desecrate their religious freedoms as a sovereign nation spiritually connected to Nantucket Sound."

Some NIMBYs defend property value:

The Committee of the Association of Danish Landowners, Danske Torpare, on behalf of its 10,000 members, decries property value depreciation by wind mills.

http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2009/05/13/2812772-danes-decry-property-depreciation-by-wind-mills-?new&mode=edit

"France : a family who sold their home without disclosing a plan to build a wind farm in the neighbourhood was condemned to pay € 36,000 to the buyer, corresponding to the loss of value estimated at 20% by the judge."

http://environnementdurable.net/documents/html/immobilier1.htm

"Saturday Oct 4th, in Paris, 2000 to 3000 people coming from France and various European countries demonstrated peacefully against windfarms"

"To the right of the picture, the mayor of a village in France whose inhabitants ALL decided to sell their houses when a windfarm project was announced in the vicinity."

"The demonstration and conference was backed by 176 associations and federations"

http://collectif.4.octobre.free.fr/video.php#video
Comment
14 of 36
October 2, 2009
Barbara Durkins points out that concrete releases pollution.
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/assistance/sectors/notebooks/stclglsnp2.pdf Exhibit 14
Let's compare national emissions by source sector

http://www.epa.gov/air/emissions/co.htm
Electricity Generation - 652,314 Tons CO
Stone, Glass, Concrete - 58,043 Tons CO

http://www.epa.gov/air/emissions/nox.htm
Electricity Generation - 4,668,962 Tons NOx
Stone, Glass, Concrete - 338,482 Tons NO2

http://www.epa.gov/air/emissions/pm.htm
Electricity Generation - 616,801 Tons PM10
Stone, Glass, Concrete - 74,623 Tons PM10

http://www.epa.gov/air/emissions/so2.htm
Electricity Generation - 10,411,906 Tons SO2
Stone, Glass, Concrete - 339,216 Tons SO2

http://www.epa.gov/air/emissions/voc.htm
Electricity Generation - 49,110 Tons VOC
Stone, Glass, Concrete - 30,262 Tons VOC

The emissions from the small fraction of concrete that goes towards wind turbines is nothing compared to emissions from fossil fueled power plants. The concrete for wind has to be installed once and lasts 20 years or more. The fuel at the power plants however, gets burned every year, and fossil fuel power plants also require concrete to build.
Comment
15 of 36
October 2, 2009
Have to agree with John Pisciotta: Barbara Durkin is insane. Does she think she is going to defeat wind power by writing in these blogs? And why would anyone with any intelligence want to stop the adoption of wind power anyway? People like her think that just because they have money (and powerful friends), they can get whatever they want, even if it's detrimental to the rest of humanity (i.e. no wind power).
Comment
16 of 36
October 2, 2009
Wind energy is an unreliable and redundant source of energy, Carolyn. You seem to be implying that 100% wind energy is doable. Unless you plan to wait until the wind blows to fill up your gas tank, as example, intermittent wind requires fossil fuel backup.

Energy analyst Glenn Schleede contributed a fine article that I hope you will take the time to read; along with the 56 well informed comments it inspired:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/wind_energy_will_be_an_early_t.html

Michael Hawes: Why would anyone with any intelligence sign a contract to pay twice their current price, net, net, net, for wind energy? I think you've been seduced by the rich and powerful PetroWindCats who take what they want. These multinationals are not philanthropic. They'll sell you what you think you need regardless of its efficacy. And, even if it's detrimental to the rest of humanity, the environment and wildlife, it's yours.

http://www.futureofcapitalism.com/2009/09/clean-energy

Do you really buy into the notion that Cape Wind's annual avian mortalities of up to 6,600 birds will help to save the species, with endangered present? Exactly how do you define "environmental benefits" in the context of wind energy?

Mass Audubon testimony on Cape Wind-- Reference File No. NAE-2004-338-1, EOEA No. 12643:

"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."

http://www.massaudubon.org/PDF/CapeWindDEIS.pdf

"...There are a few contenders for the title of the maddest thing that has happened in our lifetime.

But a front-runner must be the way in which politicians of all parties have been seduced by the La-La Land promises of the wind power lobby..."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1199535/CHRISTOPHER-BOOKER-Wind-farms-monument-age-leaders-collectively-went-heads.html#ixzz0SpzG0uPO
Comment
17 of 36
October 2, 2009
Barbara. I am not implying that 100% wind energy is doable. Don't put up straw men. (Our current electricity supply does not come from just one source, and there's no reason why it should in the future.)

I am just saying that your CO2 and air pollution arguments are fallacious.
Comment
18 of 36
October 3, 2009
Carolyn, your comments seem to me to imply that it's either wind energy or fossil fuel plants.

As example:

"The emissions from the small fraction of concrete that goes towards wind turbines is nothing compared to emissions from fossil fueled power plants."

A 180,000 1.5 MW steel constructed WTG order can only increase energy use in the industrial sector that presently accounts for almost a third of U.S. carbon emissions. And, adjust manufacturing accordingly that now accounts for about 80 percent of the total industrial sector emissions. (EPA comment # 8)

July issue of Power Engineering:

"Grid reserve margins require wind-back up, and the inefficiency of quickly firing up a natural gas unit to meet erratic wind generation output means any emissions displacement is minimal. Wind is simply an additional capital cost which proves to be more than twice as expensive for the ratepayer."

http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wind-will-not-provide-emission-benefits/

"Fallacious" is a word that perfectly describes wind lobby claims:

Telegraph UK

"The wind farm industry has been forced to admit that the environmental benefit of wind power in reducing carbon emissions is only half as big as it had previously claimed."

"For several years the BWEA – which lobbies on behalf of wind power firms – claimed that electricity from wind turbines 'displaces' 860 grams of carbon dioxide emission for every kilowatt hour of electricity generated.
However it has now halved that figure to 430 grams, following discussions with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA)."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/3867232/Promoters-overstated-the-environmental-benefit-of-wind-farms.html

"Even if the costs of and emissions from back up generation are ignored, wind is still over six times more costly than nuclear as a way to avoid emissions."

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/08/08/does-wind-power-reduce-carbon-emissions/
Comment
19 of 36
October 3, 2009
Fine then.
The emissions from the small fraction of concrete that goes towards wind turbines is nothing compared to emissions from all current US electricity producing plants (roughly 50% coal, 20% natural gas, 20% nuclear, 10% other).

Reducing carbon emissions by half of what was previously claimed is still reducing carbon emissions. 430g/KWH displaced is still a lot. Life cycle CO2 emissions for wind is only 6 to 37g/KWH including all that steel and concrete and everything.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/comparativeco2.html
Comment
20 of 36
October 3, 2009
Barbara Durkin - Leading spokeswoman for the D'alliance to "Protect" Nantucket Sound (aka Protect the VIEW OF THE FEW)...

Regularly proffers on blogs anywhere CAPE WIND is mentioned...

LIE, innuendo, red-herring, misrepresentation, fabrication, and with shame, they spew:

- 75% of the Fish caught in ACK Sound are caught on Horseshoe Shoals: A LIE.
- The fishing industry will be devastated: A LIE.
- Pave Paws will be rendered ineffective by the turbines: A LIE.
- Boaters radar will rendered ineffective by the turbines: A LIE.
- The turbines will cause a huge jelly-fish bloom: A LIE.
- The public will be not allowed to boat in the area of the turbines: A LIE.
- Marine mammals will be endangered & killed by the turbines: A LIE.
- The project is a "Land Grab": A LIE.
- The project will use the publics money: A LIE.
- We will pay more for our electricity because of CAPE WIND: A LIE.
- The project will kill the tourist industry: A LIE.
- The developer engages in dishonest business dealings: A (prosecuted)LIE.
- Real Estate values will plummet: A LIE.
- The turbines will cause ferries to collide with recreational vessels: A LIE.
- The project will cause irreversible damage to the sea-bed: A LIE.
- Massive numbers of bird kills will occur because of the project: A LIE.
- The Coast Guard will not be able to rescue boaters in the area: A LIE.
- The project will bring many more predator fish species to the area: A LIE.
- The project will not help reduce our dependance on foreign oil: A LIE
- The project will not reduce the amount of pollution we breath: A LIE.
- My Favorite: You will be able to see the turbines from the airport rotary in Hyannis: You guessed it... Another ~LIE~.
On the count of 3... Who lies?
1...
2...
3: THE ALLIANCE TO 'PROTECT' NANTUCKET SOUND: LIES.
Comment
21 of 36
October 3, 2009
Barbara Durkin of the D'alliance to: -PROTECT THE VIEW OF A FEW-...

There is a -very basic- reason why you and your cabal are not respected or considered credible by:
- The Army Corps of Engineers
- The Massachusetts Audubon Society
- The Massachusetts Office of the Governor
- Any credible Environmental organization in existence...
- The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Affairs
- The United States Department of Minerals Management
- The United States Coast Guard

The reason is:
(Remember the movie: 'Wayne's World'?...)
You... "ARE-NOT-WORTHY".
Period.

(If you don't get it: NOBODY [-NOBODY-] takes what you say having ANY credibility)

You, and the D'alliance to 'PROTECT THE VIEW OF A FEW'... Have shamed yourselves by the manner and the message you have offered to the public...

Propaganda offering: Misrepresentation, Fear-mongering, and outright: LIES.

Apologize, close the doors of your repugnant organization, apologize again, and in time... Most will forgive and forget.

You my dear, can just... Go home to Nouthboro. And stay there.
CAPE WIND... Is -finally- going to be permitted and BUILT:

WITH ~NO THANKS~ TO YOU.
Comment
22 of 36
October 3, 2009
Carolyn,

The forced admission by BWEA that they have grossly misrepresented environmental benefits of wind energy does not address the lack of evidence that wind has reduced any harmful emissions anywhere in the world.

Conversely, wind energy's adverse impacts are demonstrable, (habitat loss, birds, bats, fuel poverty, grid instability, etc.,)

UK NEWS
BLACKOUT BRITAIN WARNING
September 7, 2009

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/60259/Blackout-Britain-warning

As to your description, "small fraction of concrete"

This is from the link you provide:

"Foundations require a substantial mass of reinforced concrete. Hence the energy inputs to manufacture are not insignificant."

" In the UK the Carbon Trust found that small wind turbines on houses in urban areas often caused more carbon emissions in their construction and fitting than they saved in electrical output (CT 7/8/08)."

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/default.aspx?id=418&terms=wind+energy

SPIEGLE INTERNATIONAL
2/10/2009

'Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals'

"Despite Europe's boom in solar and wind energy, CO2 emissions haven't been reduced by even a single gram. Now, even the Green Party is taking a new look at the issue -- as shown in e-mails obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,606763,00.html
Comment
23 of 36
October 3, 2009
You clearly have contempt, Stephen Peckham, for the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. I'm neither a member of, nor a spokesperson for their organization.

I'll leave it to the friendly readers to arrive at their own conclusions as to why I will not entertain the balance of your statements.
Comment
24 of 36
October 3, 2009
Barbara, you're well known on the Cape & Islands & beyond for your close ties to the sinking ship of the D'alliance...

As was your association to waterfront home owner in Osterville's Oyster Harbors billionaire Richard Egan as previously noted by me.

To deny either clearly demonstrates your affinity for the ~untrue~.

The mere mention of your name or the D'alliances to any of the entities I have noted above...

For the sake of civility will more often than not bring a responce of:

"No Comment!"

However, to those in the know...

I comfortably stand by my assertion, and am quite certain the "friendly readers" will...

As some already have...

Reach the same obvious conclusion.
Comment
25 of 36
October 3, 2009
Dear Barbara

I am a Swiss guy living in MA.

If you don't like wind turbines, please let us now what the alternatives would be. Climate Change isn't going away staying with the status quo.

So please tell us what from your position is the solution to climate change. Or don't you believe in Climate Change?

Thank you for your response.

Diego
Comment
26 of 36
October 3, 2009
Dear Diego:

I think there is much more we can do by way of conservation and increased energy efficiency. Improved public transportation, dining by candlelight, bike to work, change light bulbs, plant trees instead of industrial wind turbines. Invest in our children, the future. Direct the stimulus money their way, to enhance their educational experience, (instead of awarding Iberola $400 + million, and First Wind $74 million).

Simple strategies for conservation:
http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/20things.htm

I'm in favor of nuclear energy as it's efficient and clean. Comment 14 by Rowen Negrin is intriguing, R and D? The wind is intermittent, ocean currents are constant.

Climate change is a theory. I "believe" in Science. I'm very wary of the opportunists and parasites capitalizing on Gorbalesque fear fanned by networks like NBC owned by GE that just happen to sell wind turbines.
Wind turbines are land and sea guzzling, the antithesis of environmentally sound, small and unintrusive footprints.

Oxford economist John Kay:

"…Business should treat the environmental movement as it treats other forms of religious belief. Business leaders do not themselves have to believe its doctrines. Indeed we should be wary if they do: business linked to faiths and ideologies is a sinister and unaccountable power."

http://www.johnkay.com/general/479

This is a superb article:

'Globally-Acceptable Truth and the Crime of Thinking'
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15326

Thank you for asking :)

Barbara

P.S. The most important public policy consideration is public safety.
Cape Wind as proposed for Nantucket Sound represents a public safety hazard based on compelling evidence provided here:

http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2009/09/19/3290406-cape-wind-a-public-safety-hazard-proposed-for-nantucket-sound-
Comment
27 of 36
October 4, 2009
I forgot to factor the second round of stimulus money to First Wind that is to date $115 million, not $74 million, (my last comment), paid by you and I.

Twice the current price wind energy, without public subsidies, (equal to 77% project construction required by wind); add tax/ratepayer costs of project and performance bonding, operation & maintenance as 1/3 the cost of energy, infrastructure-transmission and, (grid upgrade of $3.9 billion).

"...It's worth noting, too, that Mr. Obama's stated goal of transparency in the spending of the stimulus money has fallen far by the wayside. The joint Treasury and Energy Department release announcing the $503 million in alternative energy funds includes neither the words "First Wind" or "Iberdrola." It does include the mysterious entities "Canadaigua Power Partners, LLC" and "Canadaigua Power Partners II, LLC." Google them, and you find documents indicating they are subsidiaries of UPC Wind, which changed its name in May to First Wind. Search on the Obama administration's "Recovery.gov" Web site for First Wind or Iberdrola, and nothing comes up. Remember, this isn't some $30,000 pothole repair; it's hundreds of millions of dollars…"

But when the owners of First Wind — D.E. Shaw and Madison Dearborn — spend $225,000 in six months to lobby Washington and get back $115 million in money, that $115 million is wrested from lots of little taxpayers who don't each have $225,000 at their disposal to hire lobbyists to protect their interests in Washington. Those taxpayers were the people Mr. Obama was addressing when he said "Decisions about how Recovery money will be spent will be based on the merits. They will not be made as a way of doing favors for lobbyists." It's hard to imagine all those little taxpayers aren't going to be disappointed when they learn what happened to their hard-earned money."

http://www.futureofcapitalism.com/2009/09/clean-energy-ii
Comment
28 of 36
October 5, 2009
Increased energy efficiency definitely helps reduce emissions. Of course there is energy used and emissions associated with that too, such as in manufacturing insulation for buildings. But in most cases the energy used and the emissions released in manufacture are small in comparison to the energy and emissions avoided during the productive life. The same is true for wind power.

Cape Wind is anything but "small wind turbines on houses in urban areas".

The issue mentioned in spiegel.de relates to the sales of carbon credits or "green certificates" and is not a problem specific to wind. It applies to all renewable energy sources that reduce CO2 emissions, including wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydropower, wave and probably even Rowen Negrin's Gulf Stream Turbines. Maybe the carbon trading scheme needs to be changed, but wind farms are not the source of the problem.
Comment
29 of 36
October 5, 2009
Only a small fraction of the concrete used in the US goes towards wind power construction. 97% of the concrete goes towards building homes and non-residential buildings, paving streets and highways, constructing water supply systems and sewers. Wind turbine foundations would fall in the Miscellaneous category which is less than 3% of concrete consumption.
http://imgs.ebuild.com/cms/CONCRETE%20CONSTRUCTION%20MAGAZINE/2005/November/market_table1.jpg
Take your Stone, Clay, Glass and Concrete emissions numbers and multiply it by less than 3% and one can see how miniscule the emissions are, particularly compared with the emissions from the electricity generation sector.

A reasoned open-minded reader can see that you use data that is only half of the story, and that your arguments fall apart when the numbers are put into fuller context. Wind is anything but "the antithesis of a solution to fossil fuel's harmful emissions" as you claimed.

There's no need for me to continue showing the holes in your arguments, so I shall not be posting anymore. The people whose opinions count aren't here and won't fall for your misdirections anyway. The government is in favor of wind. Even the late Senator Kennedy who didn't manage to vote often because of his illness, made the effort and voted to extend the Wind PTC through 2013. He understood the net benefits of wind. He just didn't want Cape Wind to affect the views from the Kennedy's Hyannis compound.

The Audubon Society strongly supports properly-sited wind power as protection for birds and wildlife.
http://www.audubon.org/campaign/windPowerQA.html
No image available
Comment
30 of 36
Anonymous
October 6, 2009
Barbara,

One of you arguments against wind energy is the cost. But later you write that you support nuclear as an alternative. While I agree that wind cannot replace essential baseload generation but I must note that nuclear is more than double the cost of wind energy, and at this time, there is no permanent solution to the storage issues for nuclear waste. The US does not reprocess spent fuel rods, and I do belive there is far more concrete used in the construction of a nuclear plant than a wind turbine.
No image available
Comment
31 of 36
Anonymous
October 6, 2009
Regarding "America the Beautiful". As a sailor, I get a great deal of pleasure seeing a wind turbine out on the horizon. There's the sense of pride and accomplishment seeing the wind slowly turn the blades and know what it accomplishes. It parallels the pleasure of sailing.

However what does destroy the beauty of sailing along the coast is looking to shore and seeing the never-ending eyesore of gaudy beach houses and "mansions"; Monstrosities that have destroyed the beauty of the shoreline and serve no purpose other than to let a few wealthy heirs flaunt their inheritences to people who would rather see a pristine shore.

All of these structures should be removed and the original seashore restored to restore the aesthetic beauty of the area and prevent the thousands of sailors from having to endure the eyesores that exist now.
Comment
32 of 36
October 8, 2009
As an engineer directly involved with the goals of meeting the 2030 Challenge, I find it unbelievable that I'm reading through all these comments and find that the primary opposition to offshore wind generation is from people who want to preserve their view from the sundeck of their beach house. Good Grief!!
Comment
33 of 36
October 10, 2009
We need reliable and affordable energy.

Is wind energy reliable?

Nixon Peabody First Wind Trade Secret regarding Clipper 2.5 MW Liberty C 96 Turbines used by First Wind:

http://documents. dps.state. ny.us/public/ Common/ViewDoc. aspx?DocRefId= {33FA561C- ACE8-4F21- BEB3-D6DBF37F489 2}



GE discontinued the 3.6 MW wind turbine spec'd by Cape Wind. Phase 1 Arklow (7) GE 3.6 land based, offshore use modified turbines, installed in 2004, never made it to Phase 2 to resume in 2015.

Noble Prize winner, German-American physicist Jack Steinberger:

"It is only windy enough 40 to 45 percent of the time. Often, you will not be able to satisfy European energy needs using wind. In the desert, the sun is shining perhaps 95 percent of the time, which of course is much more stable," According to Jack Steinberger, it is still not possible to store wind energy in a sustainable way, and that is an almost insuperable obstacle.

http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2047

The British Government's July 2009 Energy Strategy paper on the Government's green energy plan shows costs may be 17 times greater than benefits

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/6001259/Governments-green-energy-plan-may-cost-17-times-more-than-its-benefits.html

The value of electricity produced by any electric generating unit, including wind turbines, depends on (a) its reliability and (b) when it is produced.

EIA (Energy Information Administration) costs of various forms of electrical energy:

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/05/12/levelized-cost-of-new-generating-technologies/

EIA information shows that wind energy is 30% more expensive than nuclear power. Not included: Extra state and federal incentives provided to wind energy, transmission lines, grid upgrade, costs for decommissioning wind turbines, and…

When adding all of these other factors in, the wind energy cost will easily be over 100% more expensive than nuclea
Comment
34 of 36
October 10, 2009
Energy Tribune

'Forests Of Concrete And Steel: Wind Energy And Green Jobs Not "Sustainable"
Paul Driessen

"Wind promoters want to quiet opponents long enough to get energy and climate legislation enacted - before Americans realize how it would drive the price of energy still higher, kill jobs, curtail living standards and liberties, and raise the cost of everything we eat, drive, heat, cool, grow, make and do."

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2415

Cape Wind represents immitigable harm to endangered and migratory wildlife present in Nantucket Sound; the contender for the worst site the developer could have selected. Cape Wind siting in Nantucket Sound is in conflict with the federal government's Best Science, federal and state species protections, and four bilateral treaties with Canada, Mexico, Russia and Japan.

http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2009/03/11/2534556-dear-secretary-salazar-please-do-not-sign-off-on-cape-wind-
No image available
Comment
35 of 36
Anonymous
October 15, 2009
Speaking of wind the terms 'wind-bag' and 'hot wind' come to mind...
signed, 'A friendly reader'.
Comment
36 of 36
April 17, 2010
Most things - including heating your place by burning money - are prefereble to current "onshore wind", which returns only just over half of the energy required to replace it - in its entire lifespan. This btw is about 1/50 of the return readily avaiable from a sensible design of w-Turbine Alternator device. There are 4 reasons which account for this disparity. Economy of size, Mode of operation, Betz limit, Weather-cocking and wind-sheer on very large structures.
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

Advertise With Us

SolarEdge Technologies AllEarth Renewables Unirac, Inc. 2GreenEnergy.com Solmetric Corporation Comment:Visions UnThink Solar
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