Offshore Awakening: US Investment Flows to Offshore Wind

The US is starting to look beyond the initial cost of offshore wind energy and consider its huge long-term benefits.

Elisa Wood, Correspondent
March 22, 2010 | 20 Comments

Offshore wind energy isn't cheap. In fact, it can cost twice as much as land-based wind power. Yet, several state and provincial governments vied in 2009 to attract North America's first offshore wind farm – as well as its second, third, fourth and on.

Elsam Oddly, many of these states are in the Northeast of the US, where political leaders are wary of raising energy costs. Consumers there pay among the highest electricity rates in the nation, and policymakers are on the lookout for ways to lower costs.

So what does offshore wind offer that makes these price-conscious shoppers suddenly willing to ignore the price?

‘Offshore has great wind capacity factors, it blows at the right times, and the transmission challenge is not difficult’, says Edward Krapels, director of Anbaric Holding and developer of subsea transmission projects. ‘Offshore just makes a lot of sense’.

A lot of that sense is economic. Political leaders in the Northeast and Ontario want to revive their manufacturing sectors, which lost factories in recent decades to states and nations where energy is cheaper. They envision dozens of offshore wind farms in the Great Lakes and in a spine running down the US Atlantic coast that draws in turbine, tower and component manufacturers, as well as research and development.

‘The impact of offshore wind is tremendous, from spurring economic development and new jobs, to providing stable energy costs, and will move our country towards energy independence’, said Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri at an American Wind Energy Association offshore wind workshop that drew about 700 industry and government representatives to Boston in December.

For Rhode Island and other Atlantic states, offshore wind offers the promise of jobs that might otherwise go west. The eastern states have created aggressive, self-imposed mandates to deliver a percentage of their power from renewable energy, creating a strong market for wind power. But given their dense population, they have little room for utility-scale renewable energy unless it is offshore – or imported from other regions. What Carcieri and the East Coast political leaders don’t want – and what they’ve made clear they fear – is development of a federally imposed super grid of high voltage transmission lines that would push land-based Midwestern wind power 1500 or more kilometers to the energy-hungry eastern seaboard. That scenario places the manufacturing jobs in the Midwestern states, not in their own backyard.

Rhode Island, the smallest state in the nation, has been one of the loudest voices in the struggle to develop an East Coast offshore wind industry. Governor Carcieri in December rescued a nearly failed deal between National Grid and Deepwater Wind for a 28.8 MW demonstration wind farm three miles (5 km) off Block Island.

At the state’s urging, National Grid had entered into negotiations to buy power from the Deepwater project under a long-term contract. But the utility walked away from the talks saying power from the project was too expensive.

Carcieri urged the utility back to the table and National Grid finally agreed to a contract when Deepwater dropped the price from 30.7 cents/kWh to 24.4 cents/kWh, beginning in 2013, the first full year of operation. While the utility accepted the deal, it pointed out the cost is well above its average 9 cents/kWh generation costs.

Carcieri, however, counters that the new wind contract will add only $1.35 per year more to a typical residential customer’s electricity bill. Furthermore, offshore wind advocates believe, the demonstration project is a necessary precursor to a larger, 106 turbine wind farm Deepwater has agreed to develop off Rhode Island’s coast, along with a planned 117 acre (47.4 hectares) manufacturing hub for offshore wind technology.

Cape Wind: An Industry Legend in the Making

Carcieri has made clear he wants Rhode Island to be home to the first US offshore wind farm. But he faces serious competition. In neighboring Massachusetts, the 468 MW Cape Wind project is the furthest along among US wind farms in clinching all of the necessary regulatory approvals.

The Nantucket Sound project is an industry legend because the developer, Jim Gordon, has been stalwart in battling back an organized group of wealthy Cape Cod property owners who oppose the project. The fight has raged before regulators and courts for nine years. Cape Wind has won every round, so far.

Its struggle for acceptance became easier after Massachusetts elected Deval Patrick as governor in 2006. Unlike his predecessor, Mitt Romney, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, Patrick supports Cape Wind. And, he is a close ally of President Obama, who has led a national drive for more renewable energy. Further, Cape Wind’s chief nemesis in the US Senate, Edward Kennedy, died in 2009.

Perhaps most significant, a major utility stepped forward in December and offered to buy the project’s power under a long-term contract. Cape Wind and National Grid were in negotiations as Renewable Energy World went to press. Cape Wind says that a long-term contract will enhance the project’s ability to gain financing.

However, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, which opposes the project, persists in its fight. The group has been touting arguments by a Native American tribe that the project will block views of the sun for their prayer. Governor Patrick publicly called the claim ‘ridiculous’, but it must be examined before the project can win a final okay from US Minerals Management Service, the lead agency reviewing Cape Wind.

Power in Numbers as Offshore Gets Organized

While Cape Wind fought its battles alone for many years, the US offshore wind industry has now begun to organize itself. The US Offshore Wind Collaborative launched in 2009 to address the technical, environmental, economic and regulatory issues and catalyze the industry. Steered by environmental, state, academic and industry representatives (among them the American Wind Energy Association), the collaborative hopes to be a repository of information about US offshore wind. To that end, in October it issued a major report on the emerging offshore sector, ‘US Offshore Wind Energy: A Path Forward’.

The report places the price issue firmly on the table. A fully installed offshore wind farm costs about $4600/kW, including turbines, installation and maintenance. In comparison, a land-based wind farm costs about $2400/kW, the report said.

Why is offshore wind so much more expensive? And, more importantly, will it stay high?

Offshore facilities require more complex design to bear up under storms, waves and tides. Thus, while turbines represent the greatest expense for land-based wind, foundations, towers, transmission and installation tend to account for offshore project’s larger costs, the report said. Foundations, in particular, are costly for offshore facilities because they require more steel and concrete. Water depth also plays a big role as each meter of tower height adds some $2000.

To offset the cost, offshore wind needs scale, says the report. Large projects with turbines of at least 5 MW provide better economics than smaller projects. Indeed, Deepwater says the output is expensive from its planned 28.8 MW Rhode Island project because it is a small demonstration facility.

But supporters say offshore wind’s capital cost must be put into perspective. First, wind velocity is higher over the unobstructed ocean surface, which in turn leads to greater capacity factors, more energy production, and greater revenue for offshore wind farms than their onshore counterparts, says the collaborative report. So while, offshore wind may cost more initially, it also may produce more bang for the buck.

In addition, it’s important to consider the cost of alternatives to East Coast offshore wind. Is it cheaper to move land-based wind power thousands of miles eastward or build offshore wind nearby? What will such a massive transmission line cost? The price has yet to be truly analyzed of building a super grid, and it is likely far higher than supposed, Krapels says.

‘If you are building an overhead line through a waste land, there is no question that overhead is the cheapest way to go. As soon as you introduce terrain into the equation the cost goes up. Crossing mountains, rivers, those things all add a lot to the price of overhead. When you get into an urban area and you have to bury the cable, then it gets really expensive’, he says.

While it might cost only $1 million per mile (1.6 km) for over head transmission in a ‘waste land’, it can cost as much as $10 million per mile to build in a densely populated city. That is part of the reason Krapels sees the super grid idea as unlikely. Even if the line can win all of the approvals necessary to cross from the midwest of the US, it then faces the costs and difficulties of connecting into the congested eastern seaboard, where it must break through not only concrete and roads, but also NIMBY opposition.

Krapels, a key player in development of the Neptune Regional Transmission System, a 65 mile (104 km) undersea and underground cable from New Jersey to Long Island, says opposition tends to be greater for land-based transmission than invisible undersea lines.

Geography is a key part of the argument for offshore wind for other reasons as well. Coasts and high population go hand-in-hand in the nation. And, high population means high energy consumption. Of the 48 contiguous US states, the 28 that have coastal boundaries consume 78% of the nation’s electricity, according to the US Energy Information Administration. Thus, offshore wind offers a nearby energy source for the nation’s highest load pockets.

Moreover, today’s price for offshore wind is unlikely to be tomorrow’s. Analysts expect innovation and scale to drive down costs. The collaborative report cites sources that put capital costs at $2520/kW through 2010 with a 12.5% drop by 2030.

Critics may complain that offshore wind is too expensive but, ‘We heard the same thing about onshore wind 10 years ago’, says Andy Spielman of partner in law firm Hogan & Hartson’s Environmental practice. ‘Now we have terrestrial wind all over the place because people have figured how to drive down the costs’, he adds.

Offshore activity is so great in Europe, and emerging so quickly in Ontario and the US, that prices could begin to drop in six months to a year, according to John Kourtoff, president and chief operating officer of Trillium Power Wind Corporation, which is developing wind power in the Great Lakes. He says, ‘I think the whole cost matrix will change very rapidly’.

But the industry must contend with some ‘chicken and egg’ issues before it sees lower prices. Fundamentally, projects must get built before prices can come down. ‘Until we get some experience with commercialization, we are not going to see prices drop. Until we get projects closer to construction and commercial operation, the risk premium is going to stay high’, says Jon Mostel, a partner in Energy and Project Finance partners at the law firm of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan.

In the US, much depends on how quickly projects can make their way through the nation’s notoriously arduous regulatory process. Georgina Benedetti, Frost & Sullivan research analyst, sees the US, along with Germany, making rapid advancements in market share over the next four years.

Benedetti foresees 200 MW of offshore turbines installed by 2011, likely from Cape Wind. Bluewater’s Delaware project is the next most likely to begin operations, she says.

Emerging Energy Research forecasts that North America will develop more than 6 GW of offshore wind by 2020. Between 2010 and 2020, North America and China will contribute 25% of all new offshore capacity installed worldwide, according to EER’s December 2009 report: ‘Global Offshore Wind Energy Markets and Strategies: 2009–2020’.

Cape Wind For now, with no offshore wind farms yet built, North America remains well behind the United Kingdom and other European nations in developing the sector. But the federal government elevated the importance of offshore wind in energy policy this year. The Department of the Interior awarded the first ever leases for offshore wind on the outer continental shelf (OCS) near New Jersey and Delaware.

In addition, Ken Salazar, secretary of the interior, says in 2010 the Minerals Management Service will set up a new regional office to support renewable energy development off the Atlantic seaboard. And, earlier in 2009, the Minerals Management Service issued a final rule for renewable energy development on the OCS.

‘We have created the first-ever US framework for offshore renewable energy development’, Salazar said in a speech on 10 December at the United Nations conference on climate change in Copenhagen. ‘We have cleared out bureaucratic red tape among federal agencies that was creating unnecessary confusion for potential offshore renewable projects’.

So with a strong push from federal, state and provincial governments, North America enters 2010 with a will to build offshore wind, the same kind of vigour the continent brought to land-based wind at the start of the millennium. In 2000, the US had 2579 MW of installed wind capacity on land; by third quarter 2009 it had 31,000 MW.

It’s not yet clear who will win the race to build the first offshore wind farm. And, ultimately, it probably makes little difference. What’s important is that the first is built. Then ‘gradually like a snowball rolling down hill, we will have thousands of megawatts’, Krapels says.

Elisa Wood is U.S. correspondent for Renewable Energy World Magazine.

Sidebar: Key initiatives by the states

Maine has sent a target to develop 300 MW of offshore wind by 2020.
Massachusetts intends to develop 2000 MW of wind power, most of it offshore, by 2020.
Rhode Island has formed a partnership to assist Deepwater Wind in developing a 28.8 MW offshore demonstration project, followed by a larger 385 MW project.
In New York, a collaborative of industry and government agencies plan to seek a project developer in the spring to build up to 700 MW of wind power off the coast of Long Island. In addition, the New York Power Authority issued a solicitation for projects totaling 120–500 MW to be built in the Great Lakes.
New Jersey struck a deal with Deepwater Wind and Public Service Electric & Gas to build a 350 MW offshore wind farm. The state has set a goal to attract 1000 MW of offshore wind by 2012 and 3000 MW by 2020.
In Delaware, Bluewater Wind won a competitive solicitation to build an offshore wind farm and sell the output to Delmarva Power. The developer plans a 450 MW project.
The states of Delaware, Maryland and Virginia joined forces in November to develop offshore wind power.
Duke Energy and the University of North Carolina plan demonstrator turbines 7–10 miles (11–16 km) from the Outer Banks.

Sidebar: Offshore Bonanza at the Great Lakes?

The Great Lakes appears to be a gold mine for offshore wind, with thousands of megawatts positioned for development due to polices created by the Ontario government.

An enormous body of water, the Great Lakes is a windy place. The five lakes, which border eight US states and Ontario, can produce more offshore wind energy than all of the US coasts combined, according to a report by the Trillium Power Wind Corporation, a company that plans to build four Great Lakes wind farms, which will produce about 3500 MW.

‘The opportunity here is enormous’, says John Kourtoff, Trillium president and CEO. ‘NREL’s (The National Renewable Energy Laboratory) numbers show that the largest offshore resource in the entire coastal US is on the US side of the Great Lakes. And that is less than the Ontario side.’

Kourtoff says that on the Ontario side there appears to be 64 good-quality areas for offshore wind in less than 30 meters of water. These sites could generate 34,500 MW using 5 MW turbines. His company’s analysis finds a 7000 to 9000 MW potential on the US side in water depths of 30 meters or less that are at least 4 km offshore.

Ontario took a big step toward developing this potential in October 2009 when it launched a feed-in tariff (FIT) for renewable energy facilities. Ontario’s FIT awards set payments to offshore wind projects of 19 CA cents/kWh with a 20% escalator, part of its attempt to phase out all coal plants by 2014.

Just one month after the province began accepting tariff applications, it had received so many it had to place a halt on accepting new submissions. Developers turned in 500 offshore wind applications for projects representing 20,790 MW, according to the Trillium report.

The Great Lakes offers a better environment than the ocean for offshore wind facilities, says the report, because the installations corrode more slowly in fresh water and are spared strong waves and tides.

Ontario has instituted a series of policies that make it easier to site projects. The provincial government recognizes that offshore wind projects differ from onshore and require a distinct set of rules. The province also offers projects priority connection rights to the transmission grid, and limits the permitting process to six months.

The Great Lakes wind farms promise to be an economic bonanza for Canada, according to the Trillium report. The 20,790 MW of offshore wind projects will require $83.2 billion in capital investment, are expected to generate $253.5 billion in gross economic activity, and 66,362 jobs. Trillium envisions the industry creating an offshore wind-based innovation chain that draws not only manufacturing, but also R&D, demonstration and deployment activity.

‘In effect, offshore wind development can precipitate a return to building Ontario’s economy to its original foundation – clean, perpetual and reliable renewable energy’, says the Trillium report.

20 Comments

kevin moore
May 20, 2010

We can cover all the roof tops with PV cells and wind turbines of the world, and this would be a awesome place to start, but unless we change the fossil fuel economy we are only building sand castles to be washed away! It is going to take many technologies to do this, but we have to address the problem at it's source! The place where most people get the energy to run their economies. I have been applying all I can, to solving the problem of renewable and sustainable energy. In recent months I have published my leading concept "Wind = Clean Green Energy". This concept will harvest more energy than conventional wind to electricity projects at a fraction of the cost. Rate payers will not see a change because the electric companies will be buying the fuel using the same infrastructure they use now, and use the same natural gas burning facilities they currently have in place. the difference will be in who they buy the fuel from and what gas they burn. I invite you to take a look at my work, and tell me what you think. And if I can help you in any way, please shoot me a Email. www.flickr.com/photos/kevinmoore001/sets/72157623631942524/

Thank you for your time!
Kevin Richard Moore
361 Old Town Way,
Hanover, Ma. 02339.USA.

Derek Boyle
May 19, 2010

See Coal River Wind vs. Mountaintop Coal Removal Economic study:

http://www.coalriverwind.org/

http://www.coalriverwind.org/?page_id=143

http://www.coalriverwind.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/wind-executive-summary.pdf

http://www.coalriverwind.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/coalvswindoncoalrivermtn-final.pdf

The study, which was completed in 2008, compared the economics of a wind farm vs. a strip mine on Coal River Mountain. The final analysis of the report is that the private landholding companies and mine companies benefit from the strip mining while the people living in the community and the county government benefits more from the wind farm. The annual taxes that will go to the county from the wind farm will be $1,740,000 while the severance taxes that will go to Raleigh County from the Surface mine will be $36,000. And that $1,740,000 will be annual forever. The $36,000 from the mining will last only 17 years.

Another interesting conclusion from the report is that when externalities such as increased hospitalization in areas with coal mining are factored in, the strip mining isn't profitable. During the 17 year life of the surface mine, the revenue will be -$600 Million. That's Negative $600,000,000. The wind farm by itself is profitable every year when externalities are factored in.

Gerard Vaughan
April 17, 2010

Dear Ms. Durkin,
Here are some bolders to stick in your cannon.
Current (80m high) "windfarm technology" I know to be about 1/40 as effective compared to what is actually achieved with a sensible design of Turbine-Alternator(note) Device - TAD. i.e. a return of a small fraction of 1%p.a. of cost, cf about 5%p.a. from a sensible design. The sensible one does not blight the landscape either !. There are 4 reasons which account for this disparity, which I will be glad to fully explain if you care to call bertdotwindonatgmaildotcom. They are"
1) TADs have an unusual Economy of Size - necklace-shaped
2) 2 modes of operation - Constant rps (windfarms) or Constant pitch (sensible)
3) The "Betz limit"
4) Weathercocking and windshear on very large structures.

Barbara Durkin
March 28, 2010

As Cape Wind is not under construction in Nantucket Sound after 9 years, opponents are prevailing. Cape Wind is not about public benefits, it's about one billion dollars in public subsidies.

Cape Wind was granted a "no bid" deal due to special interest language inserted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Thusly, Cape Wind and partners have not been "vetted" in a competitive bidding process. Would you rent your private residence to tenants who were not screened or "qualified" in a lease process?

It is reprehensible that regulators have never asked the question:

"Who are these guys, Cape Wind, EMI, UPC, First Wind, IVPC?"

http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2010/02/23/3941508-who-are-these-guys-cape-wind-emi-upc-first-wind-ivpc

'Cape Wind the Tribes and Secretary Salazar'

http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2010/02/17/3908600-cape-wind-the-tribes-and-secretary-salazar-

Barbara Durkin

ANONYMOUS
March 27, 2010

The Wampanoag are fighting for basic human rights and for preservation of sacred land and waters. Nantucket Sound is a place of ancient spiritual value that this private for-profit business intends to dredge, dig, and decimate in order to place 130 monstrous wind turbines, construct power stations containing tons of industrial fluids and helicopter pads, and stake their claim as "first in America." This wind project could power only a tiny fragment of America, yet it would permanently alter a national historic treasure -- beautiful Nantucket Sound. Its impact on people and place could be profoundly destructive. The Wampanoag have every right to defend and protect their sacred ground and waters. And we as Americans have every right to demand social and environmental justice. As a Renewable Energy advocate, I am ashamed and embarrassed that this business has insinuated itseslf among our ranks.

ANONYMOUS
March 26, 2010

"Sigh. Big Energy are such mercenary jerks. Why on earth would we desecrate wilderness areas and culturally significant regions WHEN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT CAN ALREADY PRODUCE 200% OF THE US' ELECTRICITY USE WITH CHEAP THIN FILM? The DOE determined back in 2003, that the entire US could be powered twice over if the existing built environment were used for rooftop solar.

THERE IS NO NEED FOR BIG WIND, BIG SOLAR OR BIG TRANSMISSION - these are all greenwashed LIES to remonopolize our grid, recentralize an inherently decentralized resource (sun and air), and to rip us off. WE should own the solar panels, efficiency upgrades and other point of use solutions and WE should be paid for producing more clean energy than we use - right where and when the energy is needed!

PLEASE do not believe Big Energy developers or their paid-off apologists (including politicians and some of the Big Enviro spokesmodels) - they are all lying to you in order to socialize the costs of their destructive, GHG INCREASING boondoggles and to privatize the profits. They need to be SHUT DOWN and WE need the programs that will stabilize, clean and democratize the grid." -- as quoted from the LA Times 3/26/10

Jim Cummings
March 25, 2010

Good to see that the nay-sayers don't seem likely to rule the day. While the current generation technology has decent potential, the real future looks to be deepwater floating turbines. Maine is aiming in that direction, looking to sidestep political challenges to near-offshore development and focus instead on addressing the technological challenges of getting floating turbines ready for prime time.

Frederick Gates
March 25, 2010

I just heard of some news getting out in the next two days about major problems that have all but dismantled pending projects. It sounds like the last thing to happen is for the ink to dry and they'll be packing up offices. East Coast, Louisiana, Arizona, and a couple of others.

John Dye
March 25, 2010

Opponents of Cape Wind (and/or wind energy in general) don't seem to understand that their energy needs have to be serviced somehow, and fossil fuels won't last forever.

Ginger Gavin
March 25, 2010

Great article, Elisa! It is sensible and reasonable to keep clean energy resources and industry local. For example - Nantucket and Block Island wind farm will generate local revenue and local jobs. It is not sensible to outsource when we need industry and jobs in the Northeast and have a great source of natural renewable energy.

Let's face it; wind power is here to stay. Keeping wind power close at hand makes total sense. Wind power creates no radioactive waste, no coal ash, no strip mining processes, no great land destruction or oil slicks and hazardous explosions or terrorist risks. Energy generated by wind and used in the Northeast will come from some place. Currently, wind power is generated in the Southwest. So, doesn't it make sense to keep wind power industry in the Northeast where the power is used and creates a great economic benefit and little environmental impact to our region?

Wind Power has minimal impacts on our environment for the value it adds to our region.

Furthermore, there is little support for any cultural claim that the Nantucket Wind Farm project off shore territory would cause harm to Native American Indian culture, land and important tribal history and heritage.

Below, are direct quotes found in recent articles from http://www.capewind.org

Mass. Wampanoag tribe supports Cape wind farm, March 09, 2010
The Pocasset Wampanoag chairman George Spring Buffalo wrote to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who is considering the 130-turbine Cape Wind project. ...He said Cape Wind fits a vision for energy "produced in harmony with nature."

Wampanoag cultural claim false, some say, February 25, 2010
Two prominent members of the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) say there is no historical basis to support claims by tribe leaders that a wind farm in Nantucket Sound would interfere with important cultural ceremonies based on the rising of the sun in the east. They say the claims are fiction.

Tribe member Jeffrey

Martin Lee
March 24, 2010

Anon 2

Do you have an address for the web site you quote? If you do could you please post a link? Thanks Martin

Lauryn S
March 24, 2010

Robbyn, Cape Wind has done extensive studies, research, and environmental impact statements. They have not just "waited a long time." Please review these very thorough documents before making such allegations.

Anon, for any truth in the spiritual requirements (why did this Native American group not say anything until so recently?), our precious places will be vastly more degraded by coal mining, gas drilling, acid rain, and potentially rising seawaters caused by the continued use of fossil fuels than by any view of windmills off in the distance on the water.

ANONYMOUS
March 24, 2010

Opposition to both off-shore wind turbines and pending wind farm applications in the western mountains has gathered like a summer thunderstorm and may well have halted the projects. A public meeting of proponents and opponents held last week and featuring former gov. Angus King in his home town, attracted over 100 people. Most were in opposition to his schemes, with well-informed criticism that covered every aspect of siting, operating, maintaining,and connecting these wind farms.

At every juncture of the decision making process, there is now considerable public opposition; something that was thought impossible a year ago. Now there is a very well organized web site and blog that roams the world looking for data to buttress their case that 'big wind' is expensive, and destructive to the environment.

In one of the ironies; a number of the 'BIG E' environmental groups, pushed years ago for trust acquisitions that featured zero development; now the same groups are having to eat their words since the wind farms feature substantial alteration of sub-alpine and scenic lands.

A recent manifestation of this ferocious opposition are the towns which once were moving towards authorizing wind farms; and now enacting ordinances prohibiting them. Given the fact that it is citizen opponents vs. big wind lobbyists like Gov. Angus King---the media 'now' reveal his financial interests in FIRST WIND, immediately discrediting his appeals; even the enabling legislation that finances these developments is now being questioned in the State Legislature.

For example, off shore wind leases give the lessee the right to seize on shore land by eminent domain for power lines, etc. ; it also prohibits fishing within a five mile radius. This is not setting well with a growing coalition of ocean front shore line owners, developers and distressed fishermen.

What makes this new 'thunderstorm' of opposition interesting is that it is laced with professionals...and that's trouble!

Pat Duval
March 24, 2010

Robbyn and Anonymous, the Cape Wind project has not come to fruition because a small group of wealthy Cape Cod residents are against it (NIMBY) and keep throwing monkey wrenches into the approval process. The latest wrench being the Wampanoags claiming the area to be sacred burial grounds and that the wind turbines will block the sun when they worship the sun in the morning. It's common news now that the Wampanoags were paid off by this group of wealthy Cape Cod residents to come up with this false claim. I live in Mashpee, MA on Cape Cod and also fish, swim, and boat in these waters they plan to build the turbines, and I say to Secretary Salazar, approve the project now and let's start construction.

Cliff Goudey
March 24, 2010

Robbyn, why do you say such things? You know the "sacred view" issue to be a hoax brought on by view-shed protectors as a last ditch stalling tactic with the tribal leaders complicit only because of the casino bait. Where was your concern over the last five decades while their sacred ground was spoiled with uncontrolled residential and commercial development? The delay and the wasted opportunity for emission-free electrical power is the only stain associated with the project. It will wash out once the project is up and running, having blazed a path for others to follow.

Fulco Vrooland
March 24, 2010

one solution is to take the turbines out of sight, i.e. really off-shore.

read more on the technology?: http://jp.linkedin.com/in/fulcovrooland

Aaron Moline
March 23, 2010

-Potential offshore wind resources in the United State is nearly 1000 GW. Offshore wind development is another means in which can promote energy security for our country as well as planting the necessary jobs to put people back to work. Wind, solar, biofuels, nuclear, renewable and conventionals: all are part of a complete energy portfolio that America desperately needs!
Want to learn more about balanced energy for America? Visit www.consumerenergyalliance.org to get involved, discover CEA's mission and sign up for our informative newsletter

ANONYMOUS
March 22, 2010

The cultural and spiritual legacy of Nantucket Sound is irrecoverable and irreplacable. The area's First People, the Wampanoag, have every right to defend and protect their living legacy from destruction. All Americans should pay attention to what a private for-profit business proposes to do to this national treasure -- and tell the Department of the Interior "No, we do not want these precedents set for our country's future." Beware, My Friends. Not all wind-energy projects are created the same. Cape Wind is selling Massachusetts the wrong answer for the most important question on the test.

Robbyn Candelaria
March 22, 2010

I fully support Earth-friendly energy production ... but Cape Wind is one project that I do not support. In fact, I am angry because it just might put an indelible stain on the Clean Energy Movement in America. Cape Wind has not come to fruition for legitimate reasons — namely that the proposed site is sacred ground to Native residents, it is environmentally sensitive marine habitat, and giant turbines would blight a national historic place. Just because a developer has "waited a long time," it does not mean his project is worthy -- or that he should even have a place in line. The energy future of this country isn't some line at the carnival. No matter how this business might spin the media, there are substantial reasons for the delay.

ANONYMOUS
March 22, 2010

Oh, YES! Please, windies, come to Maine! We need all the lobster bait we can get. And one more thing - NEVER mess with a fisherman's gear!

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

Renewable Energy World Magazine

With over 57,000 subscribers and a global readership in 174 countries around the world, Renewable Energy World Magazine covers industry, policy, technology, finance and markets for all renewable technologies. Content is aimed decision makers...