Cape Wind may have Blown Itself Out of the Water

Developer Jim Gordon, of the Cape Wind project, may have been thinking "It is sometimes better to apologize than ask for permission" when his company omitted the dredging of Horseshoe Shoal from their Final Environmental Impact Report to the State of Massachusetts. But when it comes to a project of this magnitude, 130 440' wind turbines and a 100' electrical platform slated for 25 square miles of the Nantucket Sound, a public waterway, off the coast of Cape Cod and the Islands an apology just won't cut it.

Mark Weissman, board member of the Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Commission and consultant to the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound (comment on FEIR HERE) testified at the Cape Cod Commission's public hearing, March 19, 2007, on the adequacy of Cape Wind's Final Environmental Impact Report that the FEIR omitted critical information on the dredging required in order for construction barges to get in and around 12 turbines that would be located in less than 12 feet of water, some would be in water only 7-8 feet deep. Since the draw of construction barges and tug boats (a fleet of these vessels ranging from 90-400' long would be required during construction and pile driving activities) is from 10-14 feet of water it would be impossible for those boats to navigate without dredging massive "harbor-sized "deep-water ports" at each of the many shallow-water turbine sites and dredge miles of deep wide channels for transiting the shoal to the sites".

This undisclosed dredging and possible blasting would have grave consequences on the marine life and habitat of Nantucket Shoal. Weissman concluded that "A supplemental must be required (by the Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act) to address the impacts to habitat and marine resources of these extraordinary alterations of large portions of the Shoal that would be required to erect many of the turbines."

In a Letter to the Editor of the Cape Cod Times on March 22, 2007, Mark Rodgers, spokesperson for Cape Wind wrote:

"Mr. Weissman stated that Cape Wind's final environmental impact report neglected to mention dredging Horseshoe Shoal, which Mr. Weissman incorrectly claimed would be needed to create access for a construction barge used in installing the wind turbines. Mr. Weissman went on to speculate about damage such dredging would cause. The reason Cape Wind's final environmental impact report makes no mention of dredging Horseshoe Shoal is that no dredging is needed for a construction barge to access the wind turbine locations"

On April 10, 2007, Jack Coleman, a former paid media consultant to the pro-wind farm non-profit Clean Power Now who has written about the project as a proponent for two years, wrote an analysis of Mr. Weissman and Mr. Rodgers statements titled Valid criticism - from the opposition on Cape Cod Today, an on-line newspaper, showing charts of the area and pointing out that dredging would most likely have to occur.

"Cape Wind wants to build its turbines in one of the most ecologically dynamic settings on the East Coast, a shoal that's continually buffeted by currents, wind and waves. " Jack Coleman

The following excerpts are from Coleman's blog post Valid criticism - from the opposition:

"Two Cape Wind supporters I spoke with about this were both dismissive. I am of a different opinion -- whether dredging of Horseshoe Shoal is needed is hugely significant, and I suspect it's the main reason MMS extended its regulatory review. It's not just areas directly adjacent to the turbines that may need to be dredged -- the same may be true of water less than 12 feet deep for hundreds of feet in all directions around these specific turbines, to allow tugboats and huge construction barges room to maneuver."

"But after spending roughly $30 million before generating a single kilowatt-hour, why would Cape Wind risk jeopardizing the project with a questionable omission in its documentation to MMS? I can only conclude the omission is not accidental. If the amount of dredging needed is even half as much as critics like Weissman allege, it would still involve an immense amount of material removed from the seabed. Material that have to be dredged from Horseshoe Shoal -- and placed elsewhere. The eyes glaze at the thought of the additional red tape involved. By not addressing this in the FEIR, Cape Wind may have crossed its fingers and hoped for the best. Who knows, maybe it'll pass muster. Then again, maybe not."

"Cape Wind has dodged more than its share of bullets -- lawsuits, well-funded lobbying in Washington, overheated rhetoric about avian carnage and navigational mayhem. But when it comes to dredging, that string of good fortune may come to an end. This issue, and proponents' dismissal of its importance, is an Achilles heel that Cape Wind ignores at its peril."

Suddenly, the Editors of capecodtoday.com, also wind farm supporters, closed the comments on Coleman's post stating that :

"Cape Cod TODAY regrets to inform our readers that Jack Coleman failed to contact the developer for their response before publishing this post. Cape Wind categorically denies that any dredging will take place in constructing the wind farm. They state that having reduced the proposed footprint from 170 to 130 turbines two years ago they have amble space to rearrange the placement should any specific sites prove difficult and that there is 12 feet of high water around each proposed turbine site. More importantly, any dredging would require many additional permits which would be nearly impossible to acquire according to the developer (*emphasis added). "

Within several minutes, the comments were opened back up along with "a wager to any and all Cape Wind supporters. Seeing how it is apparently beyond the realm of possibility that dredging will be needed for this project, how about a wager of one dollar with odds of, say, 1,000 to 1? If I lose, I will gladly pay $1 to any and all people willing to accept this wager. And if they lose, they each pay me $1,000." From Jack Coleman.

150 comments later, there are still no takers.

See Jack Coleman's analysis HERE

Corruption in the Wind

Last week, in an outrageous decision to speed up the process for industrial wind farms, the lawmakers in Maryland voted to eliminate environmental reviews concerning the potential impact on wildlife, endangered species and forest fragmentation.

This historic back-slide will have a severe impact on environmental rights and the public's involvement in power-plant approval. See article in The Tribune-Democrat

And following on the heels of a win for the Cape Wind project, the Minerals Management Service has delayed its Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Why? Could it be because Governor Deval Patrick of MA had his newly appointed Secretary of Environmental Affairs rubber stamp an incomplete FEIR for Cape Wind?

Today, an article written by Cape Wind proponent, journalist, Jack Coleman outlines one stunning piece of omitted information from Cape Wind's FEIR concerning the dredging of Horseshoe Shoal, which would displace miles of seabed in "one of the most ecologically dynamic settings on the East Coast", concluding it was not accidental.

Read full story HERE

Industrial Wind Farms: Where are the savings?

The 'Great Wind Rush' is on!

Despite strenuous objections from citizens all over the world, who see the destruction and potential destruction of their landscapes, seascapes and wildlife from industrial wind power plants and no savings in CO2 emissions or dependency on foreign oil, nearly all of the applications from developers have been approved.

Why?

We are told, in spite of the evidence to the contrary, it has to do with Global Warming and that in order to reduce the 'Greenhouse Effect' we must sacrifice our scenic views, precious natural resources and wildlife today in order to have them tomorrow.

But, what are the facts?

To date, not one fossil fuel plant has been closed, or even throttled back--despite thousands upon thousands of wind turbines now operating all over the world.

And in spite of the absurdly inefficient nature of industrial wind farms in countries such as Denmark and Germany (whose primary electrical utility (EON) openly admits that wind is very inefficient and doesn't actually provide any net contribution), the two most 'wind-electricity' intensive nations on Earth, wind power has not resulted in any reduction in fossil-fuel plant use--none. And in fact CO2 emissions are on the rise in those countries.

Who is driving this industrial scam?

The developers and the politicians. There's money in them there wind mills: Enormous subsidies and tax breaks for the developers and feel good non solutions for the politicians.

How do we get to the bottom of this as citizens who ultimately pay the price with our hard earned dollars in taxes and rising electrical rates (the citizens of Denmark pay the highest electrical rates in the world and get nothing for it) and the sacrifice of our beautiful lands, seas and wildlife?

We must hold our politicians and industrial developers accountable.

We need to demand that for each project; riders that stipulate if the wind farms do not live up to its claims, the utility/developer must pay some sort of pro rata penalty--not to the state, but to communities within X miles radius; or better yet, they must reduce their charge per kilowatt hour, pro rated for the amount of electricity produced versus the amount it was claimed would be produced, on a monthly or annual basis; that way, everyone benefits.

And we need to demand that our politicians provide scientific proof NOT industry claims, than any wind farm approved will cut our CO2 emissions, dependence on foreign oil, lower our electrical rates, not violate environmental and safety laws, will benefit not harm the local economy and will not create more back power plants such as diesel fuel based peakers.

Finally we must demand exactly which fossil fuel burning power plant will be shut down when any industrial wind farm is built and operational.

For a summary of real-life wind performance through 12/05 click HERE The figures are sobering. Please send it along to your state-level reps....

Co-authored by Eric Jacobson, UK and Dona Tracy, USA

Cape Wind: Fact, Fantasy or Fraud?

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

Divide and Conquer in the Environmental Movement

One of the biggest environmental travesties concerns the divide and conquer approach of Corporate America, politicians and industrial developers. Environmentalists have been pitted against environmentalists over the issue of human caused Global Warming and the solution, which appears to be one, industrial wind farms, even though there are many others in the works including the Hydrogen Economy, based on alternative energy that use solar and biomass technologies.

This divide and conquer tactic is a good one, in terms of its effectiveness. But not a good one in terms of a group of people who all have the same goal, saving the planet from pollution, environmental degradation and rampant industrial development.

The term NIMBY is thrown around so much it is hard to keep up with it. Just who is a NIMBY? There was a time when protecting your own was considered the highest of human values. After all, if we don't protect our own, who will?

But now, anyone who stands in the way of protecting their own is labeled a NIMBY. And a rich one at that.

Most of the environmentalists I know are not rich, nor are they NIMBYs. In fact, I would venture a guess that most environmentalists are of the middle class, not the rich.

We, as environmentalists, try to walk lightly on the earth, we reduce, reuse and recycle, we drive compact cars and look to replace them with electric cars in the future, we keep our thermostats down, we rarely use air conditioners, have converted to fluorescent light bulbs, use organic methods in our gardens, we buy organic foods and produce in our markets, we unplug electrical appliances that are not being used, we walk and ride bicycles rather than drive to town, we car pool, we repair rather than throw away, we protest shopping malls that attempt to build themselves in our fields and wetlands, we think globally and act locally, we give money to environmental causes we believe in, we protest factory farming, we protect wild places and wildlife, we turn out in droves to stop clear cutting and logging of our old growth forests, we volunteer our time, energy and support to give voice to the voiceless and the list goes on.

But then, controversy over human caused Global Warming and industrial wind plants enter the picture and all goes out the window. Suddenly name calling sets in, fights break out, censorship is attempted and we lose all connection to one another and fail to see our humanity and common ground.

When will we, environmentalists, simply agree to disagree and not allow ourselves to be divided by politics and industry? Because if and when that happens our power will be a force to be reckoned with. And that is exactly what politicians and industrial developers fear the most.

Eagles: Gone With The Wind?

Across the globe a new threat to eagles is quickly replacing shooting, poisoning, trapping and electrocution by power lines. The traditional Big Four has a new 'kid on the block'; Industrial Wind Farms.

Thousands of eagles are being killed by turbine blades every year all over the world and that number continues and will continue to grow as wind farms do.

The Alatmont Pass wind farm, in California, is probably the most infamous one. There, it is estimated that, over 2,300 Golden Eagles have lost their lives in the past twenty years to wind turbines. But, contrary to what the wind industry would like us to believe this is not an exception to the rule.

The Smola Wind Farm, off the coast of Norway, is responsible for killing off their entire breeding population of the endangered White-tailed (Sea) Eagle and all of their babies in less than ten months. This wind farm is brand new, considered state of the art and fitted with those modern slow moving turbine blades the industry likes to boast about, but these 'slow moving blades' are simply an optical illusion since they travel at over 200 mph at their tips.

Golden Eagles, White-tailed Eagles, Wedge-tailed Eagles, Short-toed Eagles, Booted Eagles and Bonelli's Eagles along with Griffon Vultures and scores of other raptor species are being decimated by wind farms with gruesome reports and pictures streaming in from the United States, Scotland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Japan, Australia, Spain and the United Kingdom.

But it's not just the Eagles that are dying at wind farms.

Bat and songbird mortality goes into the millions each year with the numbers rapidly growing as researchers begin to count them.

A study in New York has just filed its draft report on bird and bat deaths at a new 120 turbine wind farm. Although pre-construction studies predicted little to no impact to birds and bats this study now shows predictions of up to 6,000 bird and bat deaths a year based on body counts.

And no one knows how to stop it.

There is no more universal symbol of strength, beauty, freedom and independence than an Eagle. And there is probably no one on this planet that doesn't recognize an eagle and isn't moved by seeing one.

They speak to us. They speak to a part of ourselves that is collective in the human heart and the human soul and the human spirit.

Eagle emblems are carried into battle, adorn our halls of justice and the national flags of dozens of countries. Yet, in the name of the 'poster child' for alternative energy, fear of Global Warming and dependence on foreign oil we are wiping them out.

What will happen to our human hearts, souls and spirits when the Eagles are gone and we are left with, only, their symbols, signifying nothing.

There are alternatives to industrial wind farms that will help our planet and not kill our eagles in the process. Look into, support and push our elected officials to develop and bring on line the Hydrogen Economy based on alternative energies like Solar and Biomass.

Trees Not Turbines

At best, projects like Cape Wind might save us 10 cents on our electric bill. For that same 10 cents, I would rather plant a tree.

Trees not only remove CO2 and pollutants like dust, ash, pollen, smoke and dangerous gases from our atmosphere but they give back life giving oxygen, prevent soil erosion, beautify our communities and homes, raise our property values, save dollars on our heating and cooling bills and add precious wildlife habitat, some things Cape Wind will never do.

Fear of Global Warming, dependence on foreign oil and rising electric rates have made us feel helpless and prompted complicated, controversial, community dividing and expensive experimental solutions like the Cape Wind project.

Rather than empowering the citizens with what we can do to help, we asked to put our fate and faith in the hands of more industrial development rather than in ourselves and our ability to solve our problems.

Margaret Mead said "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has."

Trees should not be overlooked. They are nature's way of clearing our planet of pollution. And in turn they provide the oxygen we breathe.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture "One acre of forest absorbs six tons of carbon dioxide and puts out four tons of oxygen. This is enough to meet the annual needs of 18 people"

Cape Wind has claimed it will reduce CO2 emissions by 800,000 tons per year. A claim, not backed up by facts however. But, be that as it may, if every citizen in the Commonwealth of MA were to plant one tree, we would not only Reduce but we would Remove more than 800,000 tons of CO2 per year from our atmosphere along with pollutants like dust, ash, pollen, smoke and dangerous gases and do something Cape Wind can never do, add oxygen back into the atmosphere.

One mature tree planted by a house can reduce air conditioning needs and can save energy used for heating, it can absorbs 10 lbs of air pollutants, including 4 lbs of ozone and 3 lbs of particulates, it can intercepts 760 gal of rainfall in its crown, thereby reducing runoff of polluted stormwater and flooding and it can clean 330 lbs of CO2 from the atmosphere through direct absorption in the tree's wood and reduced power plant emissions due to cooling energy savings. This one tree can reduce the same amount of atmospheric CO2 as released by a typical car driven 500 miles.

Those of us who oppose Cape Wind in favor of trees are often called NIMBY's but ironically, the name-callers are often NIMBY's themselves. Two years or so ago in Boston the NIMBY's, living along the Charles River, opposed the planting of trees saying they would ruin their view.

But, in a community like Chelsea, MA where Energy Management Inc, the parent company of Cape Wind, the view is secondary to the health of its citizens. EMI has proposed a fossil fuel burning power plant that will spew more sulfur, nitrogen oxide and 37 tons of particulate matter into the atmosphere and straight into the lungs of the citizens and school children already suffering the highest hospital asthma and cardio vascular disease rates in the State.

If Cape Wind and Governor Patrick were really concerned about the health of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Global Warming and our dependence on foreign oil, they would plant trees not turbines.