The Mineral Management Service's Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Cape Wind project is just out, and so far looks very positive, finding no environmental reasons to halt the project as it is envisioned.
On a conference call this afternoon, a spokesman for Cape Wind stated that "any rational observer reading this report" will deduce that this project will not produce adverse environmental impacts. The devil is in the details, of course, and he acknowledged that this has been a "long hard road" but that there is a sense of accomplishment at Cape Wind that the project has helped catalyze a national conversation on the topic of offshore wind (which he notes has a potential of 900,000 MW ... a very significant renewable energy resource -- not that his company feels we should go about developing it all, he noted).
He went on to say that the nation's first offshore wind farm must be subject to rigorous review, but that the positive DEIS now adds to the weight of evidence from previous positive findings of various state studies and the Army Corps of Engineers. Cape Wind anticipates this to be the final year of permitting, with further public hearings in March. He called it the "right project in the right place at the right time," and if all goes smoothly, the earliest beginning of construction will be 2010 or 2011, coming online with power in 2011 at the earliest.
And in a nod to the Gristmill, one would like to think, he went out of his way to note that offshore wind would be great for powering up plug-in hybrids at night.
The Wind Kids: How high school students helped bring a wind farm to Milford, Utah
One doctor’s quest to sound the alarm on ‘wind turbine syndrome’
To unlock wind power, put a price on carbon
Comments
View as Threaded
Charles Barton Posted 6:40 am
14 Jan 2008
Charles Barton
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 7:20 am
14 Jan 2008
Anyhow, just the amount of energy it takes to build a nuke is mind blowing, so factor that into your equation, and add the timeline problem. A windfarm like this one could be up and running in 3 years time. By the time your 3 nukes are built, it's 2030, and the need for their supposed "carbon free" power is gone because the climate is already cooked.
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 8:03 am
14 Jan 2008
This is one of the reasons why the wind project in Texas got passed so quickly.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 8:09 am
14 Jan 2008
http://www.mms.gov/offshore/RenewableEnergy/CapeWind.htm
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
Quinn Posted 8:47 am
14 Jan 2008
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 8:57 am
14 Jan 2008
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 10:22 am
14 Jan 2008
Charles Barton
Permalink
Syjel Posted 10:41 am
14 Jan 2008
B) Cape Wind is financed entirely by private investors (minus the 1.9 cents/KwH production tax credit). The economics clearly work out or they wouldn't be moving with the project in the first place. Compare this to nuclear. It's a mature industry and, even so, we stopped building reactors in this country when the government stopped offering them low interest loans. The market refuses to touch nuclear without a government safety net.
C) There has been one fatality in the history of modern wind power. It was an engineer out in the Pacific Northwest last year. Remind me how many people died in Chernobyl? I'm not saying that's likely to happen, but let's not spin the facts here.
We should all be happy this industry is finally making some headway. It's worked in Europe to the point that England and Denmark are each shooting to produce 50% of their electricity with mostly offshore wind. It's high time that we start taking some initiative ourselves.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 11:29 am
14 Jan 2008
All I ask is that if the project fails, all the equipment and gear be removed. All of it.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
In the belly Posted 11:50 am
14 Jan 2008
Of course if it is some oil or gas production platform in the Gulf a sweetheart "rigs to reefs" deal is arranged, in which most removal costs are avoided and an opportunity for corporate greenwashing is provided.
And yeah, I feel good about nearly carbon-free power production displacing expensive coal.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 12:10 pm
14 Jan 2008
Charles, what 'bout the cost of mining and transport for the nuclear fuel? How expensive is that generally?
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 11:57 pm
14 Jan 2008
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:00 am
15 Jan 2008
Decommisioning nukes produces contamination that concentrates in the fatty areas near human reproductive organs, mutating DNA. The first nuclear reactor to be decommisioned lies in an unlined trench in a leaking landfill in South Carolina.
For the real cost of nukes check this nuclear industry publication.
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2047917
It explains why investors are leery of nuclear power. And that is with taxpayers picking up the tab for catastrophe insurance, waste entombment, and contamination of groundwater.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 2:54 am
15 Jan 2008
Here's how the statement begins:
"Based on a preliminary review, MMS has missed the mark in at least two key areas. While MMS has acknowledged negative impacts to birds, fisheries, and threatened and endangered species, the report neglects to adequately address key safety and cost issues that would unfairly burden the people of Cape Cod, Nantucket, and Martha's Vineyard."
Read the full statement here: (pdf)
http://www.saveoursound.org/site/DocServer/DEIS_Backgroun ...
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 3:29 am
15 Jan 2008
Wind power extremely heavily subsidized, far more so than nuclear power. Indeed, wind power is a corporate welfare scheme for rich investors.
I think if you will carefully check, you will find that there have been 13 deaths from wind power associated accidents.
Charles Barton
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 12:12 pm
15 Jan 2008
What might windpower have to do with either carbon-production or climate-crises?
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 12:22 pm
15 Jan 2008
When you make statements like these, could you please show your figures and their sources? Thank you in advance.
Does Denmark employ floating wind? If not, why not? If Denmark does not employ floating wind, would you consider that peculiar in light of your a lot cheaper claim?
Amazingdrx wrote: Floating wind is assembled in drydock and towed out to sea
Where has that ever occurred?
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 12:27 pm
15 Jan 2008
Could you point to even a single example of a 20-year-old offshore windfarm?
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 12:43 pm
15 Jan 2008
Um...Charles, last I checked, nuclear was heavily subsidized as well, and many breaks and incentives are offered durin' the construction and start-up phases, which are the most expensive. Without subsidies, most of the proposed nuclear power projects for the U.S. would probably be scrapped pretty quickly.
What might windpower have to do with either carbon-production or climate-crises?
If enough power is derived from wind and other clean renewables, then there wouldn't be a need to construct new power plants which employ "traditional" methods such as gas and coal. If we can produce enough renewable energy and enough money becomes invested in the process, then it may be possible to eventually replace most, and maybe all, of our energy sources with renewables.
Thus, our CO2 ouput would be greatly reduced. The quicker the energy is substituted, the greater the amount of C02 prevented from release. Since wind power can be established in certain locations fairly quickly, it has the opportunity to "mitigate" CO2 and other GHG releases fairly quickly.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 12:52 pm
15 Jan 2008
Read carefully. I didn't say offshore farms, I said wind farms (as in general). Most onshore wind farms have a typical lifespan of 20 to 30 years. That is to say, after 20 to 30 years, most of the windmills are generally replaced with new ones, partly due to new technology that increases efficieny, and partly due to the fact that older windmills break down to the point that it's cheaper to get new ones as opposed to maintainin' older ones.
Most reasearch predicts that offshore wind farms will probably have slightly longer lifespans that their onshore cousins (see the EIS), since there's less turbulence over the water (even when taking into account the effect of sea-salt on the windmills).
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 12:54 pm
15 Jan 2008
There have been far more than 13 windpower fatalities, Charles. Windpower accidents like this one occur continuously.
Helicopter goes down in central NY, 4 suffer minor injuries
Associated Press - January 15, 2008 6:35 PM ET
FENNER, N.Y. (AP) - Four people suffered minor injuries when their company helicopter crashed near a windmill in central New York.
A state trooper says all four aboard the helicopter were able to walk away from the aircraft after it made what appears to have been a hard landing near a windmill farm in Fenner in Madison County.
The private helicopter was owned by Adkins Aviation of Cornelius (North Carolina), although company officials could not immediately confirm it was 1 of their aircraft. Initially, state police believed the helicopter was owned by Canastota Windpower, which owns the 20-turbine wind farm located 30 miles east of Syracuse.
The helicopter crew was doing routine maintenance when the pilot became disoriented in the heavy fog. It's not known what caused the accident.
The principal reason that windpower involves such an extremely high number of per-kWh accidents, injuries and fatalities is that it taps a relatively diffuse power source. The safest power sources, such as coal and especially nuclear, have high energy density -- again, particularly nuclear has the highest energy density. The most-dangerous power sources, such as windpower, hydro and solar, have low energy density.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:08 pm
15 Jan 2008
It was most likely a mechanical failure with the helicopter, I'd think. Wanna guess at how many oil-workers have died on helicopters that were transporting 'em out to rigs...I bet it's in the hundreds, easy (my mom's now deceased boyfriend was one).
And I personally wouldn't call coal and nuclear "the safest" power sources. I'm not sure 'bout nuclear in the United States, but I'm fairly certain that more people have died in accidents at coal plants than in all clean renewable sources combined. And I'm also fairly certain people who work at nuclear and coal plants have instances of cancer and other medical problems than the general population.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 1:29 pm
15 Jan 2008
The cost of mining and transport for the nuclear fuel are respectively $2,000 per electrical kilowatt, if said kilowatt is maintained for 48 years -- a 60-year plant lifetime times 0.8 load factor -- and ~0. Transport costs are infinitesimal because uranium for 48 electrical kilowatt-years, for CANDU systems like the ones powering this computer, weighs 7.77 grams. For these systems, the enrichment cost is zero.
How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:35 pm
15 Jan 2008
That doesn't sound right to me (perhaps I'm readin' it wrong?). Doesn't the waste from nuclear energy last for thousands of years (in terms of radioactivity)? The waste can be contained, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The waste still lasts for generations, correct?
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 1:52 pm
15 Jan 2008
Doesn't the waste from nuclear energy last for thousands of years (in terms of radioactivity)? The waste can be contained, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist...
It exists, but this fact doesn't have the meaning that fossil fuel lobbyists commonly ascribe to it.
The right way to look at it is this: our year-2108 descendants will inherit lands in which, buried about a kilometre deep, are 250 billion watts of radioactivity. This may include, halfway down or a little further, our so-called radioactive legacy to them, now approaching 0.3 billion year-2108 watts, in sturdy containers. The rest will be natural; it's there now.
Pretending the man-made part matters is a prime example of the fallacy of the genuine but insignificant cause, aka straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.
How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 1:55 pm
15 Jan 2008
I meant, buried at depths ranging from zero to 1 km.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:43 pm
15 Jan 2008
My contention that cost is lower than offshore wind that is affixed to the bottom and constructed at sea (like Cape Wind)is based on the nature of the design. Data will be forthcoming as the tests are completed.
Underwater construction is very expensive and so is crane wind machine assembley at sea. Disturbance of the seabed raises eco concerns. Locating machines in shallow water visible from shore raises NIMBY concerns and pushes expensive litigation.
Mass assembley in dry docks, like the techniques used with the Liberty Ships, and modern ship building is much less expensive. Norsk Hydro is using technolgy developed for offshore drilling rigs.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 7:50 pm
15 Jan 2008
Please scroll to the bottom of this link:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html
Immediate fatalities 1970-92 per TWy electricity:
Coal - 342 workers
Natural gas - 85 workers & public
Hydro - 883 public
Nuclear - 8 workers
GRLCowan commented here in March 2007 on coal vs. wind vs. nuke fatality-rates. I suspect that that is not the full story -- but it represents a start.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 12:01 am
16 Jan 2008
Poll shows 84% in state back 130-turbines:
http://ledger.southofboston.com/articles/2007/08/16/busin ...
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 1:00 am
16 Jan 2008
How much energy does it take to build a nuke, Erik?
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:13 am
16 Jan 2008
Coal - 342 workers
Natural gas - 85 workers & public
Hydro - 883 public
Nuclear - 8 workers
Fair 'nough...though I personally don't classify most hydro as "clean renewables" personally, I imagine the industry as a whole probably does.
It says public and not workers though, which makes me think it's the result of some dam failures that resulted in flooding. However, I'm not aware of any dam that actually used hydro power for electricity as failing recently. I skimmed that link, but couldn't find any more info. Do ya know which incidents those are, just putta curiosity?
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 3:37 am
16 Jan 2008
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dam_failures
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 5:05 am
16 Jan 2008
Where do they get 883 American deaths from?
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 12:02 pm
16 Jan 2008
It is not 883 fatalities. It is 4000. Did you read the link? What does "per TWy" mean? What does the "W" in WNA stand for?
Tasermons Partner wrote: the only power-generating hydro dam to fail in America since 1975 (the report was from 70 to 95) was the Teton Dam
1972. 125 fatalities.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Creek_Flood
1977. 39 fatalities.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Barnes_Dam
1982. 3 fatalities.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawn_Lake_Dam
I found a good blog-post, from just last month (and with a lot of great photos), on dam failures. Besides historic dam failures, it talks about dams as potential terrorist- or warfare- targets.
Today there are hundreds of potential terrorist targets in the form of dams located in densely populated areas. Attacks and even suicide-attacks from the dam itself or from a watercraft would eliminate the need for aircraft. All that would be required would be a relatively small amount of explosives dropped on the back of a dam in a water tight container. Major dams, especially iconic ones like the Hoover dam have security measures and are monitored, but many smaller structures are entirely unguarded and have only the most minimal security.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:10 pm
16 Jan 2008
Second, those figures also exclude deaths during the construction of the plants, and also exclude deaths associated from mining/drilling. for the plants fuel sources.
And though dams probably would make good terrorist targets, one of the advantages to solar and wind systems is that the distribution allows for part of the system (such as a few windmills or panels) to fail, but not have much effect on the overall power system. With plants confined to generally singular locations and systems (like coal and gas), it's easier for a failure to effect the entire facility/system.
Permalink