Yes, Cape Wind has done it again. This private developer really knows how to sell a project.Cape Wind walked its Final Environmental Impact Report, a mountainous slick four color promotional document filled with double-speak and corporate smoke and mirrors, straight past the People and plopped it, along with a big wad of promised cash, right onto the desk of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act.
APPROVED!
Did the Massachusetts Policy Act (MEPA) ever bother to read and investigate past the illustrations and one-liner hype? My guess is no. How could they? No one could read, research and comment on a 5,000 plus page document in thirty days, much less investigate all of the public comments and concerns in seven. It would take a University an entire semester to do that. But, no matter, MEPA had made up its mind way before that report hit the desk based on politics, making the gesture simply a formality.
And this isn't the first time Energy Management Inc/Cape Wind has bypassed the people. They also took their four-color slick money promising proposal for a dirty fossil fuel burning power plant past the people of Chelsea, MA, already suffering the highest hospitalized asthma and cardio-vascular disease rates in the State of MA, to the MEPA office. Approved!
Its a gold rush!
And without State and Federal regulations in place its a total 'free for all' out there with private energy developers, like Cape Wind, literally falling all over each other to claim millions of dollars in subsidies, tax breaks and public lands, before that door slams shut and the inconvenient facts are in.
What are those inconvenient facts?
Fact #1. Industrial Wind Farms will not reduce CO2 in our atmosphere, have any effect on the reduction of Global Warming nor will they reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Since wind blows intermittently, wind farms rely on fossil fuel plants as back up. Case in point, that diesel power plant proposed for the city of Chelsea, MA. Cape Wind knows the wind doesn't always blow so they are attempting to put their fossil fuel back up power plant in place which will spew sulfur, nitrogen oxide, and 37 tons of particulate matter into the atmosphere and straight into the lungs of the citizens and their children in Chelsea. For every 'clean green' wind farm there is a dirty fossil fuel or nuclear power plant backing it up.
Fact #2. Industrial Wind Farms like Cape Wind, in spite of their protest of agonizing years of Agency scrutiny and review, can not comply with State and Federal regulations. Why? The answer is simple. There aren't any. Regulations are only now being developed for off-shore wind farms and the Draft Environmental Impact Statements have not, as yet, been released.
Fact #3. Industrial Wind Farms will cause millions of bird, endangered species and bat deaths every year and this number will grow exponentially as wind farms do. Once again, the wind industry is smart. They have rushed for approval before the facts are in on the threats to wildlife based on studies and research paid for by their own industry. Of course, their findings show industrial wind farms in a favorable light. They are akin to the health studies done by the tobacco industry. But the truth follows in their wake. All over the world wind farms are killing eagles, migratory and nesting birds, endangered species and bats, just as smoking is causing cancers, emphysema and heart disease.
Fact #4. Industrial Wind Farms will have a catastrophic detrimental effect on our environment, precious open space, wildlife habitats and protected lands and seas. Industrial Wind Farms require miles of land and sea in order to be built. The developers must fell trees (which naturally suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, replacing it with life-giving oxygen), blast mountain tops, build roads, dig miles of electrical cables and destroy wildlife habitat in the process. Off shore wind projects like Cape Wind must not only clear land for its cables but they must dredge miles and miles of seabed to connect the underwater cables to their electrical platform killing and displacing all of the life that depend on it for its survival. This project, like all industrial wind farms has a huge foot print. Cape Wind will occupy 25 square miles of the Nantucket Sound. Do you know how big that is? It is the size of the Island of Manhattan, and its 130 440' tall wind turbines as large as 130 44 story tall skyscrapers, with spinning blades.
Fact #5. Industrial Wind Farms are not removed and the land and waters restored after the life of their projects or should they be abandoned by the operators. The average life of a wind farm is twenty years. To date, extensive research suggests no industrial wind farms have been removed as a result of decommissioning, they are left to simply rust and fall apart.
Fact #6. Industrial Wind Farms cause navigational and air traffic safety hazards and radar interference. Studies from the Department of Defense in the UK have shown radar interference at wind farms prompting our Department of Defense and FAA to issue its own studies.
Fact #7. Industrial Wind Farms have a detrimental effect on the health, safety, welfare, lives and livelihoods of those directly affected by them. Medical research has shown that people living near wind farms suffer debilitating illnesses directly correlated to the noise and constant flicker from wind turbine blades. Small already struggling commercial fishermen on Cape Cod are projected to lose 60% of their annual income should the Cape Wind project be built on the Horseshoe Shoals area of the Nantucket Sound.
Fact #8. Industrial Wind Farms present significant hazards to public safety. The US Coast Guard is concerned that it will be unable to perform search and rescue missions in the Nantucket Sound should Cape Wind be built. The rough waters and unpredictable weather have already cost many many people their lives. Not only is the Coast Guard concerned that it will have a diminished capacity to hoist victims into hovering helicopters but the helicopter and their pilots will now be threatened, as well, due to 130 440' tall structures with moving blades. All three airports on Cape Cod and the Islands, along with the ferries, that carry millions of passengers a year, have issued statements that Cape Wind will cause significant hazard to air and navigational safety.
Fact #9. Industrial Wind Farms when placed off shore pose oil spill threats. In order for an industrial off-shore wind farm to operate it must have an electrical service platform. These service platforms are filled with oil. Should a collision occur with an oil tanker, a fire break out in the transformer or accident due to natural forces like a hurricanes, this oil can spill into the water killing sea birds, fish and marine mammals while it spreads to the beaches, estuaries and coastal habitat.
Fact #10. Industrial Wind Farms are not our only choice for alternative energy. The Hydrogen Economy based on solar and biomass technologies is already in practice in many countries in the world and it is growing. It, unlike wind, is not intermittent and unlike wind (which must be used on the spot or it is wasted) can be stored in batteries for later use for our homes, buildings, cars and factories. It is safe, readily available, green and clean.
These are just some of the facts that the office of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act has chosen to ignore in its gold rush for money and political correctness.
Shame on them! They are being bought off with 10 million dollars (offered by Cape Wind to the State) in trade for the safety, say, beauty, natural resources and welfare of the People of the Massachusetts.
The Nantucket Sound might not be in your back or front yard but beware, the next Industrial Wind Farm may be on its way to a sanctuary or National Treasure near you. Will you be ready to decide what is fantasy, fact or fraud? And when you do, will your elected officials back you up or will they sell you, your community and precious natural resources out to a private developer?
For more information please see: National Wind Watch, Industrial Wind Action Group, Bat Conservation International, Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, WindStop, Chelsea Collaborative, Save The Eagles, StopIllWind, Minnesotans for Sustainability, and Country Guardian
8 comments:
I have been loosely following the cape wind story, as it's been all over the environmental blogs. I appreciate the valid concerns you raise, but I would say that several of your facts are ill-conceived:
Fact 1 - This is only true if the alternative to the cape wind project is either no new power generation or another source which is completely pollution-free (more on this later). Yes, backup generation will be necessary and that is lamentable, but you can hardly claim that cape wind will not reduce CO2 emissions. The simple truth is that when a wind turbine spins, it produces power that does not give off CO2, which means that a conventional power station is producing that much less.
Fact 2 - Yes, wind turbines do kill birds, but so do tall buildings, cell-phone towers, and *gasp*, pollution from conventional power sources. In fact, something like 10,000 birds are killed by each of these for every one killed by a wind turbine. A quick google search should turn up several articles detailing the fact that the Audubon society has decided to back wind power even though it kills birds.
The fact that bird deaths will increase with increased use of wind farms is true, and definitely worth considering. It would be especially interesting to see if less birds would die per turbine if they were built in small, localized wind farms rather than industrial projects like cape wind.
Fact 7 - Again, consider the alternatives. living close to a coal/natural or nuclear power plant can't be any better for your health.
Fact 10 - This one is key. There are definitely other emission-free alternatives to wind, but they really aren't cost-effective yet. Charging three times as much more for solar power isn't a viable option for producers or consumers. And last time I checked, solar power was definitely intermittent (clouds, night). In a way, biofuels are as well in that they are dependent on crop yields which depend, in turn, on the weather - just like wind!
I can't say I'm a supporter of this project - it looks like Cape Wind is flexing its financial muscles to disguise how poor this site is for a wind project. You make lots of valid, important arguments, but the problems I stated above really damage your credibility. Cut the fat and you'll be that much more convincing.
Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough comments.
Fact 1 - Cape Wind will not reduce emissions, although as you point out it will not create more CO2, because the other power plants will just keep running and producing their emissions. If they were to be shut down while Cape wind was producing ramping them back up will produce even more CO@. But none will be decommissioned or shut down as a result of Cape Wind. Furthermore, take a look at Denmark one of the largest producers of wind turbines and wind farms. They are everywhere and their CO2 emissions have gone up, not down. They have wind but they rely on nuclear and fossil fuels from other countries. And their citizens have the highest electricity rates in the world.
Fact 2- The fact that birds die from other sources doesn't make a credible argument from a new huge threat to birds that is growing rapidly. It is like saying pay no attention to AIDS, more people die from cancer and hear disease...
but can you point to another eagle and bat killer that rivals wind turbines? I can't. And I have worked in the field for over twenty-five years as the founder of a not for profit organization devoted to the health welfare and protection of birds of prey.
Fact 10- There was a time very recently when wind was also not considered economically viable. What is economically viable then? Simple economics... supply and demand. If wind is seen as the only viable alternative energy then better forms of alternative energy like the hydrogen economy will not receive the funding they deserve.
I do believe Cape Wind has chosen a very poor site, it is smack in the middle of a marine sanctuary, migratory bird flyway and endangered species habitat.
Additionally, there are enormous safety issues for the people traveling through and above these waters.
Fact 1 - Not a fact. Reality is that wind farms reduce the number of coal/nuclear/etc plants we would otherwise build.
The wind won't always blow in one place, but it will be blowing somewhere. And you're tied into a national grid. Meaning wind is a good part of a responsible energy mix.
The bird thing is a myth. Modern well sited turbines are a healthy way of generating power - for birds and us.
Here's a Treehugger post putting the record straight.
(Sorry if this is a repost. Not sure my last one went through so re-submitting to be on safe side.)
That birds and bats are not killed by wind farms is the myth.
Take the Smola Wind farm off the coast of Norway. The wind turbines there killed off the entire breeding population of the endangered White-tailed (Sea) Eagle and all of their babies in less then ten months. This was a state of the art brand new wind farm that was seen not to be a problem for birds before it was built. Even the RSPB endorsed it then. But not now!
There is also a brand new wind farm in NY that was surveyed before it was built and found to be no threat to birds and bats. Now the surveyor/researcher has found that up to 6,000 birds and bats were killed in its first year.
Hi Dona,
Although I disagree with some of your arguments, I believe your concern for the environment is sincere. I have what I hope is an interesting question that is a bit of an offspin to your divide and conquer topic.
Do you find the IPCC scientists' prediction of a possible 1-2 ft sea level rise over the next century credible?
If that does happen, would you prefer sea walls where there are now beaches on Cape Cod or would it be better just to let the ocean take whatever property it will?
Hi Mike, thank you for your comment.
I am not a believer in human caused Global Warming but rather see it as a natural cycle that has been going on, in terms of warming and cooling, since way before man arrived.
So, in answer to your question "Do you find the IPCC scientists' prediction of a possible 1-2 ft sea level rise over the next century credible?"
Possibly but I really don't think we can do a thing about it.
However, we are polluting our environment and it needs to be stopped. So I am a believer in conservation, preservation, reduction in pesticide usage and alternative energy among other things.
Dona:
The bird killing by wind towers is so tragic, even more so as it is avoidable. If these wind towers must be erected in anyone’s opinion, site them away from areas of high bird concentration. Follow the siting guidelines of the DOI/USFWS, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, A.B.C., and MA Audubon; avoid areas where endangered species are present when siting wind towers. WE already know that wind towers kill birds and that’s why we have established these guidelines! I can’t fathom why we would ignore them and site 130 wind towers Nantucket Sound, an endangered species habitat and major flyway.
Avian life is not the only life threatened by Cape Wind being constructed in Nantucket Sound.
We need to observe the industry experience of the Scroby Sands wind project’s adverse impact to seals because:
Review of State and Federal Marine Protection of the Ecological Resources of Nantucket Sound, a report by the Center for Coastal Studies (January 28, 2003), produces the following excerpts:
“The waters of Nantucket Sound provide habitat for several species of seals and porpoises, including the gray seal, harbor seal, and harbor porpoise."
"These waters are particularly significant to gray seals which have a well-documented and growing breeding colony in Nantucket Sound, representing the southern-most breeding colony in the world, and the only known breeding colony in the United States."
"The gray seal is listed as a species of “special concern” on the Massachusetts List of Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern.”
“The Western North Atlantic gray seal population is divided into two non-interbreeding communities, with 93% of the southern community located within Nantucket Sound. This division of breeding communities renders the Nantucket Sound habitat essential to the sustenance of this population.”
"With respect to the genetic uniqueness of this population, the gray seals’ dependence on the waters of Nantucket Sound strongly support protection of these and adjacent waters employing an ecosystem approach to management."
David Cottingham, Executive Director of the Marine Mammal Commission, the federal agency established under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 2/23/2005 to the USACE Col. Koning:
“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.”
What have we learned from Scroby Sands?:
"A WINDFARM is being blamed for the deaths of scores of baby seals.
Staff at the wildlife hospital at Winterton, Norfolk, say hundreds of
seals on Scroby Sands off Great Yarmouth have been so disturbed by
the 300-foot turbines there that it is affecting their breeding.
Many pups are born dead or abandoned by frightened mums. Jaime
Allison, a biologist at the hospital, said: "A definite pattern is
emerging. It's hard not to conclude the wind farm is responsible."
http://c.moreover.com/click/here.pl?r331203734
“New Blow to Scroby windfarm” of 11/27/2006
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2006/11/27/
new-blow-to-scroby-windfarm
Thank You, Dona, and others, for taking the time to investigate and produce the facts that we can't afford to ignore.
Barbara Durkin
I also disagree with some of the views presented here.
The fact that no existing CO2 emitting plants will be shut down due to wind power applies equally to solar and biomass, both of which are growing and neither of which has led to a shutdown in existing plants. This is a strawman argument that leads nowhere.
The "Hydrogen Economy" too, is a myth. Hydrogen is not an energy source, but a store. To produce hydrogen, an external source is required. The energy on energy return on solar is significantly less than wind when taking into account all steps required to erect the equipment and generate electricity.
And as another poster indicated, solar is also intermittent, and in many places, wind resources are far better than solar. Biomass also has strong drawbacks - beginning with the fact it also offers very poor energy return on energy invested. The sustainability of our lifestyle is dependent on a much higher energy return than is generated by biomass. Wind is not sufficient, but it is much better.
Finally, if hydrogen is captured using fossil fuel energy (coal, oil and natural gas) it will lead to an increase in CO2, rather than a decrease. The exact opposite result that you object to wind about (see the first paragraph 1 above) but which you profess not to be concerned about.
As a country and a culture, we are strongly in need of energy literacy. Unfortunately I fear this site does little to contribute to that goal. A between-the-lines reading of this site implies that your primary objection is to the Massachusetts Cape Wind project. That's an understandable view, but cannot excuse spreading misinformation on this topic. In the future, I hope you can reach an accomodation between your goals and and fair debate.
Post a Comment