No Data, No Worries

When CapeWind's data tower isn't functioning, just assume that the project would be producing 410mw...

Or be rational and assume that 410mw is a fabrication, and that actual production is much lower during the data tower's malfunction.

This is just more greenwashing from Jim Gordon and Cape Wind Associates LLC.

Light Winds on Nantucket Sound = Lights Out For Massachusetts Residents

This just in from CapeWind.org.

With the test tower reporting light winds on the Sound, Cape Wind would be producing just 43 mw hours.

Check it out for yourself.

Old News, New News, and Jack Coleman

Klaus is back after a brief hiatus.

While I have been quiet for the past week or so, I have been following press on the proposed wind farm in Nantucket Sound.

That said, it strikes me that the same story Catherine Komp wrote for The New Standard on APRIL 21, 2006 has been sited by two separate sources as “newsworthy” in the past two days! The article, entitled “Cape Cod Wind Farm Could Face Romney Veto” is outdated and subsequently presents misleading information about the current status of one Cape Wind.

The New News:

Mitt Romney is no longer Governor of Massachusetts. Deval Patrick, a Cape Wind supporter, has taken Romney’s office on Beacon Hill.

Minerals Management Service (MMS) has pushed back the release of its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Cape Wind to the fall of 2007. Don’t expect a decision on this project any sooner than 2008. MMS is currently moving toward a formal policy for the siting renewable energy on the outer continental shelf of the United States.

The United States Coast Guard has yet to release any regulations regarding the wind farms as a navigational hazard. This will need to happen before MMS can release its DEIS for Cape Wind.

Recently, project supporter Jack Coleman scoffed at Cape Wind’s claim that no dredging will occur on Horseshoe Shoal. Read his story here, it’s a good one.

Cape Wind buys its way over state hurdle

The recent rubber stamping of Cape Wind’s FEIR on Beacon Hill generated a media buzz that is finally fizzling out. While the Boston Globe, New York Times, Boston Herald, Cape Cod Times, and a series of other news sources ran stories last Friday, the announcement is still making its rounds in the “green news” circuit. The Cape Cod Times gave the story its usual biased coverage, though I bright spot was a piece by Associated Press Writer, Steve LeBlanc. Cape Wind project clears state hurdle got the majority of the facts right: 130 turbines, 25 square miles of public land in federal waters seized by private developer Jim Gordon, each turbine topping 440’. LeBlanc even mentioned that that Cape Wind will negatively affect Cape Cod’s economy, fishing in Nantucket Sound, navigation, and birds.

The crowning disappointment of secretary Bowles ruling was the $10 million state mitigation package.

The package includes $780,000 for the restoration of Bird Island, a prime nesting habitat for terns, $4.2 million for natural resource and marine habitat restoration, and $5.6 million in federal lease payments over 20 years.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the geography of southern New England, Bird Island is situated in Buzzards Bay, a water sheet of spanning 280 miles of shoreline. Not to be confused with Nantucket Sound, the place where Cape Wind Associates LLC plan to construct their industrial park. Interesting how the state mitigation package specifically sites Bird Island, but generalizes the rest of the funds will be spent. Nantucket Sound and the communities on Cape Cod would be the biggest losers with this project comes to pass, yet the monies for mitigation are being diverted to other areas of the Commonwealth.

I guess it makes sense to restore breeding populations of Terns outside of Nantucket Sound considering that more birds in Nantucket Sound would mean more bird kills by Cape Wind and that would only generate bad press. Jim Gordon wouldn’t like that.

I did some algebra.

An inadequate FEIR + $10 mitigation = “Adequate”

For all those raving about the new administration, consider them bought. Beacon Hill might as well be Tammany Hall with Patrick in office.

Apparently Nantucket Sound is for sale. Time to take down my lawn sign?

Not a chance.

RFK Jr. defends Cape Cod from industrial development

At a recent press conference regarding the future of Ethanol Robert F. Kennedy Jr., founder of the Waterkeeper Alliance, was again asked about his stance on wind power in Nantucket Sound. His remarks reflect a keen understanding of competing environmental values.

Of permitting of CapeWind, he remarked:

“Those decisions have to be made by the local community”

Kennedy also voiced concern about the impacts a project would have on community fisherman:

“I’m an opponent to the wind farm in Cape Cod because it will put hundreds of small commercial fishermen out of business.”

He also said that the wind farm could be moved a slight distance for a modest increase in cost, but to a location that would not interfere with the fishing industry at Cape Cod.

“If they move the wind farm, it could be slightly more expensive for the partners,” Kennedy said. “It’s a bad site. It will put hundreds of small fishermen out of business. There are 5.5 million people that use that waterway every year.”

See the entire story on Ethanol at Grainnet.

Don't Be Fooled...Cape Wind Won't Stop Global Warming

Supporters of the Cape Wind project would have an uninformed public believe that Jim Gordon’s “Vision” of 130 turbines in Nantucket Sound is a serious step towards curbing the effects of global warming. Bottom line is that this project would have negligible effects on curbing global carbon dioxide emissions. Moreover, the looming eco-apocalypse that will swallow Cape Cod whole is already unfolding. If you don’t believe me, check the latest report from the IPCC. We do not need Cape Wind to stop global warming. It is a pipe-dream to begin to think we can stop global warming; its effects will unfold for over the course of this century, and likely spill over into the next. If sea-levels are going to rise, it is not because of the valiant fight put up in opposition to this project, it is because humans have steadily increased emissions of greenhouse gases since the rise of the Industrial Revolution.

Enter your search terms Submit search form

All this doomsday talk does not mean that there is no hope, but it should put this debate about the placement of this particular project into context. One industrial power plant in Nantucket Sound will not address global warming. It will ruin a place that has and continues to define Cape Cod and the Islands. It will kill birds and disrupt benthic habitats. It does pose a navigational safety hazard to boat and avian traffic. It will cost taxpayers over a billion dollars in subsidies over the life of the project. Too often this debate is polarized by supporters who define all opposition as NIMBY. I believe that these people do not want to talk about the real issues at hand because they know their oppositions’ issues are legitimate and deserve consideration.

I do not doubt that the United States is in need of offshore-renewable energy, and offshore wind appears to be viable, as illustrated by our neighbors across the pond. When Jim Gordon proposed this project in 2001, it was one of a kind. Little has changed since then, and Cape Wind still stands to become the first off-shore wind farm in the United States. For many, the logical thing to do is to sink our teeth into the promise of offshore wind, and get something in the water. Unfortunately, the public is faced with a false choice when it comes to supporting a particular wind project – there is only one to choose! Why is this? Because Minerals Management Service, the government agency now in charge of writing the rules and regulations for all offshore renewable energy on the outer continental shelf of the United States, is still in its rulemaking process. You wouldn’t start spending your own money building a house that the government could tear down half way through. Can we honestly expect renewable energy developers to waste their own dollars in the same fashion? No. And we shouldn’t. The appropriate course of action is to wait and see what alternatives there are to Cape Wind. This will happen, but we have to be patient.

(photo from cjohnson7)

Demystifying the permitting of offshore wind farms

Wind power, and particularly offshore wind, continues to be cited as a clean and green way to generate electricity. Offshore technology has been realized in Europe, but has met serious opposition (and much support too) in the United States. The permitting process has been a slow and complex here in the United States as illustrated by Cape Wind Associate’s proposal to construct 130 turbines in Nantucket Sound. Though the project began in 2001, it is still over a year away from being permitted. Despite this lengthy time table, now is an opportune time to jump in and examine the complexities of permitting offshore renewable energy in the United States.

Minerals Management Service is the leading federal agency in permitting all offshore renewable energy in United States. States, the US Coast Guard, the FAA, the Department of Defense, and others also have the task of reviewing project proposals. This brings us to the most recent development in the permitting process here in the United States.

The recent release of Cape Wind Associates 5,000 page Final Environmental Impact Review (FEIR) to the state of Massachusetts has come before the release of Minerals Management Service’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) of the project.

This statement may mean nothing to you, but if you are interested in the future of offshore wind power in the United States you should be paying attention.

By releasing their FEIR to the state of Massachusetts, Cape Wind Associates has triggered a 30-day public comment period, which ends in eleven short days (March 22nd 2007). At the end of the comment period, Massachusetts has seven days to decide if the FEIR includes all information relevant to the public and appropriately assesses the scope of the proposed project. If Massachusetts finds the FEIR to be adequate, state agencies will be required to use the FEIR as the guiding document in their permit review.

Though the filing of the FEIR means that the permitting process is moving forward, it seems that Cape Wind is pushing forward without all relevant information. The filing of this document has come before the release of several other key documents from federal agencies that include the United States Coast Guard, the FAA, the Department of Defense, and Minerals Management Service. With several key documents not yet filed, it does not seem possible for the FEIR to contain all relevant information about the project. If the state of Massachusetts finds this document adequate, state agencies will have to move forward and make decisions when data is missing.

In 2005, Ellen Roy Herzfelder, former Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs, asked that Cape Wind associates wait for federal agencies to file key documents before proceeding at the state level. She writes, “I believe coordinated review is a good government practice, both in terms of allowing for maximum public and agency understanding of the project and to ensure that review by regulatory agencies is as efficient as possible.”

In addition to recognizing the importance of a coordinated state and federal review process, Cape Wind Associates are asking the public to read and respond to a 5,000 page document in just 30 days. Stakeholders are asking that Cape Wind Associates withdraw their FEIR until federal agencies release their key documents, and are also calling for the public comment period to be extended sixty more days.

If Massachusetts finds the FEIR “adequate” it is likely that Cape Wind will run a press release claiming victory. Not so fast. Though this would be a step forward in the projects permitting process, it only gives state agencies a framework to review the project.

The state of Massachusetts and all federal agencies reviewing the project still need to report their findings and grant Cape Wind a permit before the project is built. All said, do not expect a final decision to come down until sometime in 2008.

Value conflict on the road to energy

The future of the environmental movement is in energy. With world population on the rise, a climbing domestic GDP, and India and China emerging as major players in the global market economy, the environmental movement must navigate an increasingly nuanced energy crisis. Ostensibly, the environmental battle of the future is waged against mining, drilling antienvironmentalists. However, upon closer examination, the true battle is one among environmentalists struggling to protect not only the planet but also the concept of place. Thus, while crusading against the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, the movement must simultaneously withstand a potentially divisive ideological conflict between environmentalists who seek to save Earth from global warming with the development of renewable energy, and those who want to protect specific places.

One of these places is Nantucket Sound. In 2001, New England energy developer Jim Gordon began plans to construct a power plant in the heart of Nantucket Sound. Fast forward to 2007, the so-called Cape Wind proposal has spawned trench warfare between environmentalists who favor renewable energy development in Nantucket Sound and environmentalists who contend that the costs of altering the cultural, historical, and aesthetic integrity of the Sound outweigh the benefits of Cape Wind. Disharmony amid environmental values has forced members of the movement to make difficult choices about the use and preservation of Earth’s resources. And yet, there is no silver bullet to trump global warming, keep the earth pristine, and increase energy production.

I believe that is it the task of the environmental movement is to address demands for cleaner energy without abandoning the places that communities have been built around. Nantucket Sound defines the culture, history, and character of our communities on Cape Cod. The Sound is a place in inherent worth and intrinsic value. We cannot allow this sacred place to become the home of an industrial powerplant.