The Counter Cape Wind Blog

Click headline link to watch video of Sen. John Warner discussing the Cape Wind project and the lack of federal policy for off-shore wind power with John Paul Woodley, Secretary of Civil Works, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
"April 6, 2005 - Full committee hearing. (Afternoon session) An informational hearing on pending nominations."

Sen. Warner raises issues surrounding wind power, the Cape Wind proposal; Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, etc., at 1 hour, 5 minutes, 57 seconds [suggestion: fast forward. Disscussion ends at 1:11:00 [Total time of video- 1:36:50 with Real Player]


Just one of many interesting comments by Sen. Warner;

“We should have here in the Congress the responsibility to enact a framework of legislation to support the exploration of wind power on those parts of the continental shelf that are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.”

"Boring fact is oil not soon tapped out"

By SCOTT W. TINKER

Houston Chronicle, June 25, 2005

["Tinker is the state geologist of Texas and director of the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas at Austin's Jackson School of Geosciences, where he holds the Allday Endowed Chair. He spent 18 years in the energy industry and lectures extensively on the future of energy."]


"As the U.S. Senate debates the national energy policy, many are aware of the hype surrounding this academic construct. A Web search of "peak oil" turns up an array of experts who believe that a pending peak in world oil production will soon lead to global economic collapse."

"In their rosier scenarios, experts predict sky-high gasoline prices that will crush oil-dependent economies like the United States. In their darker forecasts, they say people won't be able to obtain food, heat their homes or live securely during a period of global famine and resource wars."

"All of this might be entertaining were it another subject for a Hollywood film, but it has become almost a subculture (and cottage industry). For those who wonder if the global production of oil will peak and begin to decline some day, the answer is yes, it will. The more pertinent question is: Should you care?"

[cut- click headline for full article]

[page 1]
“Bird deaths from electrocution and collision with wind turbines and power lines are an ongoing environmental issue affecting wind energy development and the siting and operation of electrical transmission and distribution lines. Wind energy is a major part of the renewables portfolio standard (RPS), and wind developers rely on federal and state tax credits to help offset costs of new development. However, high wind areas are also prime habitat for certain protected bird species.”

[page 24]
“The first offshore wind energy project in federal waters has been proposed in Nantucket Sound, Massachusetts. The project was proposed by Cape Wind Associates in 2001 and will have 130 turbines up to 454 MW… Since this is the first offshore wind project to be proposed in the United States it is unclear what the impacts may be to water birds. It will be difficult to conduct post-construction monitoring for mortality rates since carcasses would not be found.”


[page 25]
Staff Findings and Suggested Policy Options: Wind Energy
“Federal and State Laws and Regulations Protect Birds Killed By Interacting
With Wind Turbines. Virtually every bird killed results in a violation of one of these laws. Bird deaths also impact the species and can result in litigation."

"The Energy Commission Could Promote Development of New Wind Resources Only in Areas That Have Low Risks to Birds. As wind energy production expands, the rotor swept area of turbine blades increases and more birds will be at risk for collision. To lower risks to birds developers should conduct protocol-level bird use surveys prior to development. Expansion or repower projects should be required to incorporate mitigation measures and monitoring, and to report results so fatality rates and mitigation efficacy can be assessed. Using that information, they can then site turbines to avoid areas of high avian use. Additional wind development to meet the RPS goals is feasible while at the same time limiting avian impacts."

"...The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and Dorset Against Rural Turbines (Dart) both campaigned against the turbines, which they said would have been taller than the spire at Salisbury Cathedral.
"[We] were delighted to hear that the appeal lodged by Your Energy Ltd on 27 April against the refusal by North Dorset District Council of their application to build nine giant wind turbines... has been dismissed," a Dart spokesperson said.

"This news will remove from hundreds of local inhabitants the threat that has been hanging over them for the last two years and enable them to get on with their lives."

"Elsam's electricity is too expensive"
By The Copenhagen Post
"The country's largest utility, Elsam, charges too much for electricity in western Denmark, the Danish Competition Authority says. The authority is reporting the company to the Competition Council."

"Elsam overprices electricity in Jutland and Funen, the Danish Competition Authority said on Thursday." [click link for full story]

[click headline for link]

"The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983. The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector. Topics include reforms in health care, taxes, Social Security, welfare, criminal justice, education and environmental regulation."

[Click Headline for link]


Roseate Tern: Endangered

Excerpts:
“…Congress finds and declares that various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation… other species of fish, wildlife, and plants have been so depleted in numbers that they are in danger of or threatened with extinction… these species of fish, wildlife, and plants are of aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people…"

“Encouraging the States and other interested parties, through Federal financial assistance and a system of incentives, to develop and maintain conservation programs which meet national and international standards is a key to meeting the Nation's international commitments and to better safeguarding, for the benefit of all citizens, the Nation's heritage in fish, wildlife, and
plants.”


“POLICY - It Is further declared to be the policy of Congress that all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act… It is further declared to be the policy of Congress that Federal agencies shall cooperate with State and local agencies to resolve water resource issues in concert with conservation of endangered species.”





Piping Plover: Threatened

http://www.waterwayscouncil.org/ [main page]
From "Capital Currents", June 3, 2005, page 14. [click headline]

"Should the Corps of Engineers be in charge of permitting the construction of offshore "wind farms," clusters of giant turbines to generate pollution-free electricity? Opponents claim the swirling blades are unsightly and sometimes kill migrating birds. The Corps’ involvement, based on Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, hinges on whether the structures interfere with navigation. But John Paul Woodley, Jr., the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), recently testified that he was "personally very uncomfortable with the authority that we are being asked to use" in granting permits for offshore wind farms. In fact, he doesn’t think the Corps is the appropriate Federal agency to be granting permits for the wind power plants except "with respect to navigation channels." Sen. John W. Warner (Virginia), who said he supports wind power as a valuable renewable resource, told Mr. Woodley that he believed Congress should enact "a framework of legislation to support the exploration of wind power..." He has since proposed legislation eliminating Federal tax subsidies for offshore wind power developments and setting up a permitting process "comparable to oil and gas," implying that such farms would be subject to a royalty system."

"The problem with wind power is not just that it is ludicrously uneconomic, yielding nothing like the environmental benefits its supporters claim, but that it is so inefficient. What its proponents never explain is that the average turbine produces only 25 per cent of its theoretical capacity."

"...Wind power is one of the great self-deceiving fantasies of our age."
http://www.warmwell.com/mar2booker.html

"...Nowhere is a marine protected area designation more needed than Nantucket Sound, which is threatened by commercial development from an offshore wind farm company."

[click headline for link to video]

From the Friends of Science Society, Calgary.

OTTAWA, April 13.
Canadian Climate Experts Speak Out in New Video - Science underlying Kyoto Protocol seriously flawed. Researchers at the University of Calgary, in cooperation with the Friends of Science Society have released a video entitled: 'Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What you're not being told about the science of climate change.' At a news conference held in Ottawa, some of North America’s foremost climate experts provided evidence demonstrating that the science underlying the Kyoto Protocol is seriously flawed...


Contrary to claims that the science of climate change has been settled, the causes of the past century’s modest warming is highly contested in the climate science community. “There is absolutely no convincing scientific evidence that human-produced greenhouse gases are driving global climate change”, stated climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball. He added that the Canadian government’s plan to designate carbon dioxide as a “toxic” under CEPA is irresponsible and without scientific merit. “Carbon dioxide is a staff of life, plain and simple. It makes up less than 4% of greenhouse gases... it is not toxic.”

IPCC assertions about the unprecedented nature of the past century's warming, or the widespread beliefs that we are experiencing an increase in extreme weather, accelerated sea level rise and unusual warming in polar regions are shown in the video to be wholly without merit.

The video was initiated by the Friends of Science Society, a registered not-for-profit group of geologists, environmental scientists and concerned citizens, “in an effort to make the science of climate change available and understandable to the general public”, stated Dr. Doug Leahey, President of Friends of Science Society. "The public, media and government would benefit by hearing from all sides on this important issue in order to make as informed a decision as is possible.”

Boston Globe, June 17, 2005 Letter to the Editor

IT'S SURPRISING that Donald MacGillis, who seems to know physics, repeats the misleading figure that the Cape Wind turbines will ''generate" 3.6 megawatts each (''The horizon in Denmark," editorial, June 14). Even Cape Wind's own home page makes a distinction between rated capacity and actual generation.
Yes, each turbine's ''rated capacity" may be 3.6 megawatts. But to generate that amount of electricity would require the turbine's running at full capacity. This would be rare, and then only for short periods (a previous editorial in the series mentioned that one drawback of wind turbines is that they often don't produce). Most wind turbines, like those in Denmark and Hull, are lucky if they generate only a percentage of their rated capacity over a year's period.
ROBERT SKOLE, Boston

Click headline for full story. The proposal for 128 turbines on private property in Waubra, Australia, north-west of Melbourne, has just gained Government approval. It has also divided the community, just as the Cape Wind proposal has in New England. Opposition spokesman Ted Baillieu describes Waubra as a sensitive landscape area and claims many locals were too scared to voice concerns following a bomb scare during a public meeting last October. Baillieu reports the planning process was so flawed landowners secretly contracted to have turbines set up on their property before yesterday's Government announcement.

But even if a goal for 3,000 MW of wind power is achieved by 2010, it will still only provide less than one per cent of Japan’s total electrical demand.

Clicking the headline above will take you to a short history of the Regulatory Branch of the Army Corps of Engineers [PDF/Adobe Acrobat Document. Click this next link and you will be on the main page of the Regulatory Branch ]


The Regulatory Branch history includes the following short account [verbatim] of a permit decision made by the Corps in the early 1930's. Their reasoning from over seventy years ago is worth considering again today in the Cape Wind debate.

"1933- U.S. ex rel. Greathouse et al vs Dem.. The Supreme Court ruled that the Corps could refuse a permit for a commercial wharf in the Potomac River that would not harm navigation, but that would be inimical to the construction of the George Washington Memorial Parkway. Interesting words from the Corps' old Washington District on this case in a 1931 letter: "Such construction of docks and subsequent buildings would present an unattractive front and a further destruction of great natural beauty. That the Georgetown front is ugly cannot be used as a argument for creating another similar condition on the Virginia side." Aesthetics in 1931!"

"Utilities Put Cap on Wind Power"
05/18/2005

"The Asahi Shimbun"


"TAKAMATSU-Just when it looked like smooth sailing for wind power generation, electric power companies, its main buyers, have placed limits on their purchases, citing the unreliability of the clean energy."

"The wind power industry, in more ways than one, has become a victim of its own success."

"A surge in wind power supply has raised concerns among regional utilities that a greater dependence on natural forces may destabilize their power grids...."

[Click headline for full story]

On May 31st the Cape Cod Times published a "My View" essay by Mark Rogers, spokesman for Cape Wind; "Clearing the air on Cape Wind's plan"

On June 11th Audra Parker, Assistant Director for the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, responded with this letter to the Editor.
______________________________________________


AIR-QUALITY CONCERNS STILL DOG WIND FARM

Cape Wind has dramatically overstated the air-quality benefits of the proposed wind plant in Nantucket Sound. Nothing Mark Rodgers offered in his May 31 commentary changes that fact.

Mr. Rodgers does acknowledge that the Army Corps exaggerated the benefits of the proposed project by using outdated information in its review. He also agrees the interest of the public should come before the interest of Cape Wind. And to assure us, he states that the current review using the National Environmental Policy Act ensures that a permit decision be consistent with the public interest. He does not mention that Cape Wind is trying to gut that very NEPA process, which is designed to protect the public.

He also does not mention that the Environmental Protection Agency gave the Cape Wind environmental review its worst possible rating, ''a category 3-inadequate.'' That means the EPA, whose mission is to protect human health and the environment, ''does not believe that the draft (environmental impact statement) is adequate for the purposes of the NEPA review.''

Cape Wind continues to blanket its project in environmental ''green,'' but the color more appropriately describes Cape Wind's profit, not air-quality benefits for the public.

Audra Parker
Assistant Director, Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound
Cape Cod Times, June 11, 2005

In the first week of June Senators Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and John Warner of Virginia introduced the "Environmentally Responsible Wind Power Act of 2005" in the U.S. Senate. In an editorial he wrote for The Chattanoogan, [click on headline for link], Sen. Alexander reports Congressman John Duncan (R-TN), chairman of the Water Resources Subcommittee, and Congressman Bart Gordon (D-TN), ranking member of the Science and Technology Committee, will introduce similar legislation in the House of Representatives.

[Click headline to learn more.]

Section 10:
33 U.S.C. 403

"That the creation of any obstruction not affirmatively authorized by Congress, to the navigable capacity of any of the waters of the United States is hereby prohibited; and it shall not be lawful to build or commence the building of any wharf, pier, dolphin, boom, weir, breakwater, bulkhead, jetty, or other structures in any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, navigable river, or other water of the United States, outside established harbor lines, or where no harbor lines have been established, except on plans recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of War; and it shall not be lawful to excavate or fill, or in any manner to alter or modify the course, location, condition, or capacity of, any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, lake, harbor of refuge, or inclosure within the limits of any breakwater, or of the channel of any navigable water of the United States, unless the work has been recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of War prior to beginning the same. "

Detail from "The English Pilot: The Fourth Book" 1st. Edition, 1689, London.