Cape Wind claims to have cleared another hurdle today. From their press release:
Today's Department of Defense (DOD) report is good news for Cape Wind. The report clearly finds Cape Wind to be outside of the wind-turbine offset zone being proposed for PAVE PAWS radar systems.
Now the DOD has reached the same determination as the U.S. Air Force -- that Cape Wind will not negatively impact the Air Force PAVE PAWS radar system. This report puts to rest in a final form any reasonable concern about this issue.
The reality is that projects like Cape Wind strengthen national security by making America more energy independent and less reliant on foreign sources of energy.
That's not how the Alliance for Nantucket Sound sees it, unsurprisingly, claiming that this report is final proof that the turbines would threaten missile defense systems and therefore, national security.
These two just can't agree on anything.
‘Heretic’ battles straw man
The Wind Kids: How high school students helped bring a wind farm to Milford, Utah
Comments
View as Flat
Delay And Deny Posted 10:55 am
16 Jun 2007
With 40%+ efficiency solar cells, wind might be a step backward:
Solar Power at Half the Cost
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18718/page1/
A new mechanism for focusing light on small areas of photovoltaic material could make solar power in residential and commercial applications cheaper than electricity from the grid in most markets in the next few years. Initial systems, which can be made at half the cost of conventional solar panels, are set to start shipping later this year, says Brad Hines, CTO and founder of Soliant Energy, a startup based in Pasadena, CA, that has developed the new modules.
John Bailo
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 1:24 am
17 Jun 2007
So it's always a financial decision, even even a permit is granted. The company might have 5 years to build a unit or two so as to keep its lease claim so as to renew it, and it's not the case that hundreds of wind turbines would sprout overnight like a Chia Pet. Laughs
These offshore units are very high risk, and I can imagine that the pylons to hold them vertical would have to be well over 120 feet deep in shifting shoals and sometimes very dangerous seas. Maybe it would work - who knows and who knows when?
/sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 1:49 am
17 Jun 2007
It costs four times as much, say Danish wind experts.
cphpost.dk/get/101573.html
Despite having some 7000 km of shoreline available, the expert panel that combed Denmark's waters for offshore sites was hard-pressed to find suitable locations.
The panel found, for example, that building the sites in 40 metres of water was four times more expensive than building them in 10 metres of water.
Other obstacles such as nature preserves, shipping routes and fishing grounds also had to be avoided.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 7:15 am
17 Jun 2007
I think most of the Texas Offshore Wind Project would have been in 40-80 feet of water, which you can translate to meters if so desired. Not sure about Cape Shore. Similar depths?
Good point.
/sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:16 pm
17 Jun 2007
Audobon has give Cape Wind the greenlight on the bird front.
The fact is that windows kill the most birds by far. Maybe these "others" opposed to wind power over birds ought to ban windows, aircraft, cats, buildings, cars, trucks...
The brid threat talking point against wind is very tired.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 11:32 pm
17 Jun 2007
Cape Wind makes economic sense b/c it's a very windy spot featuring reliably great winds during the summer cooling season, and it blows hard all winter long. I've never been on that piece of water when it wasn't blowing well.
Plus it's very near a large market, Cape Cod.
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:17 am
18 Jun 2007
imagine a cape wind political furor for every offshore wind farm? who would risk money on one?
Cape Wind is running offshore wind right into the same problem nukes now have. Worried investors.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 1:10 am
18 Jun 2007
The bird migration thing is much more pronounced in lower Texas because it is the convergence of the Mississippi and Mid-West flyways, and the birds can hit any elevated object, being it a bridge, electrical pylon, or wind turbine tower. It's illegal as heck but the best tasting duck is the ones that hit the electrical pylons because there's no birdshot in them.
And for those who don't know Nantucket, I grew up in that region and in the summer it is infamous for "pea soup" fog and totally becalmed conditions. In fact, we ran aground off Martha's Vineyard one year because of the pea soup and what was a huge, shifting sandbar that was not on the nautical charts. It can be quite becalmed in the region starting in about mid-July, the Dog Days of Summer.
/sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Clean Power Now Posted 7:26 am
18 Jun 2007
http://www.cleanpowernow.org/index.php?name=News&file ...
I would love to know just how far away from radar the opposition would like the Cape Wind project to be sited - how about the coast of South America?
Permalink
donatracy Posted 8:50 am
18 Jun 2007
What I find humorous is the fact that Cape Wind proponents do not believe a community has the right to object to a 25 square mile industrial project in the middle of one of its most precious natural resources especially one that presents a public and wildlife safety hazard.
As to the DOD conclusion, it discomforting to know that what amounts to 'approximately' two km from an 'approximate' safety zone could be considered at all safe.
Ask yourself if you would feel safe if this project were, say, the planned BSL4 facility at the Boston University Medical Center. I would feel no safety at all being just a couple of km.s outside the safety zone... much less we are talking about the safety of the entire country not just my neighborhood. Is that worth the risk? I say no.
Cape Wind is irresponsible in its siting and that becomes clearer and clearer every day. Why not go out into the deep water? That approach is proving to be much more viable with projects already producing electricity.
Buying into Cape Wind is like buying that computer that will be obsolete even before it hits the stores.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 12:14 pm
18 Jun 2007
The shoals of south Nantucket can run out 20 to 50 miles and it is a constantly shifting zone of very dangerous water. Lightships were placed out there for over a century to warn ships of impending disaster (South Nantucket Shoals). Since 1983, the lightship, the last remaining in the US Coast Guard fleet, was replaced by a buoy.
The geology of this deadly zone is completely shifting marine sand. There is no bedrock such as by Plum Island or other places, unless one bores way down and I am not familiar if you would simply hit mud, shale, or real rock at some level. Suffice it to say the top 30 feet of marine sand could come or go as the ocean currents sweep the shoals. One might have to bore holes well over 150 feet deep below the sea bottom to anchor a 400-foot wind turbine.
That's a bunch of concrete and metal. If they have all the permits and think they can do it, good on them. I promise not to laugh if one falls over in a 60 MPH Northeaster. /sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
pigdpeters Posted 10:04 pm
18 Jun 2007
I have never heard the Cape Wind people discussing what the Danish might propose: Why not site the turbines right down the median strip of the Mid-Cape Highway (Route 6). This is publicly owned land, running along the crest of the terminal moraine that is Cape Cod, ensuring clear exposure to the prevailing southwest and northwest winds.
D Peters
Falmouth
Permalink
pigdpeters Posted 10:22 pm
18 Jun 2007
Is the fact the turbines would be sited near a large market relevant to the discussion? By stating this, do you mean to imply that the residents of Cape Cod would benefit disproportionately from this locally generated power?
D Peters
Falmouth
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 2:54 am
19 Jun 2007
The problem is that like natural gas, once out of the local area (captive market) that has an interlocal agreement, is becomes a fungible product. In other words, there are no Cape Wind electrons, AEP electrons, or Connecticut electrons. The power is simply routed to a distribution grid in a manner that will not over- or under-load the transmission cables.
So the question is whether rate-paying residents and homeowners on Nantucket would benefit by an a electric power generated in its offshore turbines in Federal waters. I'd be careful about drawing an deductions without having the facts because another power company spends a ton of money sending power from the mainland to Nantucket via submarine cables. Remember, there is a "first-in last-out" logic about distribution and the power pools because you can't over- or under-load the transmission cables, and any long-term contracts must be honored first.
It could well be that Cape Wind electrical power would have to be sold on the spot market, which could be local, regional such as Maine, or even trans-continental. My understanding is that it is not like some policies that allow home-owners to generate wind power and sell it back to the grid automatically, such as by rolling the electric meter backwards (which is fun to watch by the way!). We're not talking about a few kilowatts here, we're talking about hundreds of megawatts when running at full build-out and optimal wind speeds.
P.S., not sure about the DoD claims about the radar. If you've ever viewed a real radar screen such as on a commercial ship with 14, 24, and 48 mile radar ranging, shadows can be created at times - especially mountains. High-tech companies such as Lockeed-Martin-Marietta do have the intelligence to use either transmitters or geo-coding to ID each of the towers, so one could actually "see" a boat moving among the turbine towers. It's remarkable stuff.
/sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 6:13 am
19 Jun 2007
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
Clean Power Now Posted 7:11 am
19 Jun 2007
It's humorous that you continue to write the same things many times over even though they aren't correct. Repetition does not turn a falsehood into truth.
There certainly can be objection to a project. You do a fair share of that and we continue to hear about it. No one is denying the right to object but to imply that it is the community is down right false. I represent Clean Power Now and its 7000 members, we don't object. The results of a poll taken last spring indicated that 60% of Cape residents and 80% of Massachusetts residents support the Cape Wind project, they don't object.
We have an indigenous source of energy right off our coast that we have a responsibility to tap into or should we ask the community of Appalachia to continue to suffer for our energy needs while the mountain tops are being lopped off? What community are you a part of - Barnstable, Cape Cod, Massachusetts, US or the world?
Also, making the connection of Cape Wind to the biolab is a hoot comparing bubonic plague and wind turbines. That is what I call humorous.
Deep water utility scale wind farms are at a minimum of 10 to 15 years away and to wait that long is simply irresponsible. There is one project off the coast of Scotland of two turbines. Not utility scale, not economically viable and no where near application at a utility scale.
Continuing to imply that the safety of the country is at risk when it comes to Pave Paws and Cape Wind is also funny. All reports from the Air Force and Department of Defense have shown that the Cape Wind farm in its location will NOT affect Pave Paws. How many times do you need to read this or hear about it to stop making the same false accusations over and over?
May I suggest because it's just so humorous.
Barbara Hill
Permalink
pigdpeters Posted 7:46 am
19 Jun 2007
Please re-read my question:
Is the fact the turbines would be sited near a large market relevant to the discussion? By stating this, do you mean to imply that the residents of Cape Cod would benefit disproportionately from this locally generated power?
And please then re-read your answer:
Someone had wondered what makes Cape Wind an economically viable project. Since it's not proposed to be terribly far offshore, that makes the power it would produce a very short distance from land, Cape Cod, the Islands...
Your answer does not address the question, because you write about economic viability, not benefit to the local consumers. My question is intended to shed some light on whether a spurious benefit to local consumers (local, therefore cheaper, power) is being used as a carrot to induce support for the project.
On the topic of economic viability, please note the issues I raised in my earlier post, "Shifting Shoals and 130 Power Cords," http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/6/15/145728/121#com ...
As an oceanographic engineer, I am aware that the challenges related to the long-term installation and operation of offshore cabling are highly non-trivial. As I suggest, the project would be better sited on land, such as along the Mid-Cape Highway.
The post from Mr. Wells regarding distribution does address the question I asked. I would appreciate your comments addressing the points I raised in my question
Thank you,
D Peters
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 8:01 am
19 Jun 2007
Incidentally it is not saying that wind farms more than 25 Kilometers away have no effect - merely that they are easy to compensate for.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 9:12 am
19 Jun 2007
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 9:37 am
19 Jun 2007
Another option would be to replace the windmill with a floating nuclear power reactor.
news.google.com/news?q=floating%20nuclear
20 countries interested in floating nuclear plants
Economic Times, India - Jun 4, 2007
[...]
Floating nuclear power station on schedule
Barents Observer, Russia - Jun 6, 2007
[...]
Nuclear station to anchor near Russky Island
Vladivostok News, Russia - Jun 6, 2007
[...]
Cape Verde considers Russian nuclear power station
afrol News, Norway - Jun 5, 2007
A floating nuclear power plant as provided by Rosenergoatom is thus one of several solutions the Cape Verdean Ministry of Energy is considering.
[...]
Russia promotes floating nuke plants
ImediNews, Georgia - Jun 4, 2007
Permalink
pigdpeters Posted 9:54 am
19 Jun 2007
siting
Thanks for clarifying, D. Hadn't heard of the idea to site turbines on land...along the length of the Cape? How comparable is the "wind resource?" Would you imagine there'd be more opposition to that siting proposal?
-------------------
Would it be possible to read what I have written and provide a less flippant response, please?
Thanks
D Peters
Permalink
pigdpeters Posted 10:11 am
19 Jun 2007
As an alternate site to at least THINK ABOUT, as a way to put the argument in some kind of perspective, the Mid-Cape Highway is:
Already publicly owned
Accessible by road
Mostly runs along a high terminal moraine, where winds are unobstructed from both the prevailing SW and NW directions
Not under water
I do not object to the wind farm for any of the stock reasons - hazard to navigation, wildfowl, or PAVE PAWS. On the other hand, I do object to PAVE PAWS... but that is another story.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 10:23 am
19 Jun 2007
Earlier you wrote:
When 130 towers are cabled in this manner, it seems to me that the maintenance of these cables alone will be expensive enough to make the project an economic failure.
A single 90MW floating nuke would not require 130 separate underwater-cables.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 11:39 am
19 Jun 2007
Permalink
pigdpeters Posted 12:11 pm
19 Jun 2007
Question on this: what is the wind speed there? One advantage usually cited for offshore wind is higher, steadier wind.
by Gar Lipow at 10:39 PM on 19 Jun 2007
Well, in other land installations the turbines are put on ridges, or at least on ground relatively higher than the surroundings. In the 50's when Routes 6 (the Mid-Cape) and 28 were built, they were built on the least inhabited land at the time - the ridges formed by the glacial moraines. Route 28 from Bourne to Falmouth is another example of an elevated strip of public real estate. Be worth looking into, wouldn't it...?
D Peters
Falmouth
Permalink
pigdpeters Posted 11:30 pm
19 Jun 2007
Already publicly owned
Accessible by road
Mostly runs along a high terminal moraine, where winds are unobstructed from both the prevailing SW and NW directions
Not under water
To these I can add:
5. Runs parallel to existing transmission lines
D Peters
Falmouth
Permalink