The Counter Cape Wind Blog

Tie for second place;


Friendliness

Presentation of information

Knowledge of the information by those staffing the table

Approachability

Wind power costly, Canaccord finds

By ALLAN ROBINSON, Globe and Mail, Toronto, ON. Monday, July 18, 2005

"Wind power sounds like a cheap way to generate electricity, but it isn't when the cost of capital is included and investors are looking for a return on that investment, according to report released Monday by Canaccord Capital Corp. As it turns out, wind power is more expensive than coal, nuclear power and hydro, concludes Bob Hastings, an analyst for Canaccord."

"Wind power costs range from $67 to $105 a megawatt, including a return of capital, compared with all-in operating costs of $34 for coal, $47 for nuclear
power and $53 for hydro, according to the report titled “All in, wind power is not cheap!”

"The cost efficiency of wind power can vary significantly with the utilization rates. On average wind power results in a utilization rate of about 33 per cent, according to the report."

"The capital cost of installing a megawatt of wind power is about $1.7-million, although the low utilization rates push the effective cost to almost $5-million, compared with $1.3-million and $2-million for each utilized megawatt for coal and gas-fired plants, respectively, he said."

"The capital cost for wind power also often increases because wind power is not viable on a stand-alone basis and backup generation is required when wind is not blowing. “Free fuel keeps operating costs low, but capital costs and generally low utilization rates are the drivers of higher costs,” Mr. Hastings said."

Click headline for editorial in the July 15, 2005 Investor's Business Daily.

"Running Against The Wind"

Excerpts-

"There are valid reasons other than esthetics to question this faith in wind power. That giant sucking sound you hear is taxpayer dollars being sucked from our wallets to subsidize what continues to be an uneconomical, land-consuming and, yes, environmentally dangerous source of power."

"A modern wind generator stands on a tower between 300 and 400 feet high with flashing red lights that can be seen for more than 20 miles. Its blades are 95 feet long and, when the wind is blowing and at sufficient speed, can generate enough electricity to power about 500 homes. But that's only 35% of the time."

"At 390 feet high, turbines would tower over the Statue of Liberty (305 feet), U.S. Capitol (287 feet) and Arctic oil production facilities (50 feet)."

"Meanwhile, our dependence on foreign oil is reduced by not a single gallon, while domestic oil resources go unexploited and clean and continuous energy from nuclear power is ignored and opposed."

[Great closing remark in the full editorial.]

June 9th, 2005
"From the mid-18th century to the mid-19th century, the Massachusetts island of Nantucket was the world’s leading whaling port. Nantucket Historic District encompasses the entire island, which includes the finest surviving example of an early New England seaport town in the United States, according to the National Historic Landmarks program."

"The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is reviewing an application for the construction of a “wind farm” in nearby Nantucket Sound that would include 130 windmills that are 417 feet high and visible from much of the southern Massachusetts coastline. The Corps says that this alternative energy source would have an adverse visual effect on numerous historic properties, including lighthouses and the Nantucket Historic District. "


"The windmills would be visible from much of the southern Massachusetts coastline."

"Under the Section 106 review process, the Corps and the Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) determined that the wind farm would have an adverse visual effect on numerous historic districts and individual historic properties, including houses, lighthouses, former President Kennedy’s family home, and several National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) including the Nantucket Historic District."

"As part of the review process, the Corps initiated consultation on the proposed project with the SHPO, the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head, and various local governments. Because the Corps determined that NHLs would be adversely affected, it also invited the Secretary of the Interior to participate in Section 106 consultation. Several other organizations, including the Save Our Sound Alliance, the Wianno Club, and the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, have offered comments or asked to be consulting parties to the proposed project."

"In February 2005, the Corps notified the ACHP of its finding of adverse effect. That next month, the ACHP conveyed to the Secretary of the Army its intention to be involved in consultation on the proposed wind farm."

"This case is expected to generate much controversy since the need for new energy sources must be balanced with the detrimental effects to historic
properties. "

[Click headline.]

Essential reading for all sides in the wind power debate.

Thanks to David Webber at
Wind Power Talk
http://www.windpowertalk.blogspot.com

A proposal by Provincetown artist Jay Critchley.

ENCOUNTER THE TWISTERS!

"The Martucket Eyeland Resort & Theme Park™ will feature ye Olde Cape Cod Mall & Gambling Casino, and an Energy Park Featuring Wind, Nuclear and Oil Drilling." [...out beyond three miles and the jurisdiction of Massachusetts!]

"Special Homeland Security Funding Expected for this "Third Eyeland."

"An ambitious expansion of the controversial Cape Wind Energy Project development for Nantucket Sound has been proposed to include an enclosed gambling casino, shopping mall and an experimental energy park, all with support from the U.S. Departments of Energy and Homeland Security. Martucket Eyeland Resort & Theme Park™, proposed by Provincetown artist Jay Critchley, will construct a half mile, triangular platform, anchored by the 130, 420-foot high wind turbine towers on Horseshoe Shoal. This new “third eyeland”, together with Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard, will create a healing, pyramidal energetic field - a third eye - in the sound, and become a tourist destination, enhancing the unique maritime and cultural history of the region."

[Click headline for details!]

[Click headline for 21 page report]

"Practical Realities for Policy-Makers"
Robert L. Hirsch, Ph.D., The Annapolis Center

“Renewable Energy" implies cheap energy forever. It effuses harmony with nature. It sounds politically correct in a world that is properly concerned about the environment. How wonderful it would be if we could tap renewable energy on a major scale to satisfy a large fraction of U.S. electric power needs! But, as is often the case, perceptions and realities differ. In this monograph, we look at the two renewable energy technologies that have risen to the top of the list of popular renewables for providing electrical power: wind and photovoltaics (PVs, also known as solar cells). These two technologies are favored by the environmental community and many government policy-makers who are trying to mandate their use.... [cut]

KEY FINDINGS:
• Current renewable technologies are incapable of providing the all-renewable electric power in the future that many have envisioned.

• There is an inherent mismatch between unpredictably intermittent renewable electric power technologies and the public’s need for dependable power-on-demand.
---------------------------------------------
Dr. R.L. Hirsch is a former Chairman of the Board on Energy and Environmental Systems of the National Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academies. He is currently a member of the Academies Committee on Alternatives and Strategies for Future Hydrogen Production and Use, and has served on a number of previous National Research Council committees.

Thursday, April 07, 2005
By Ray Berry

"Today the battle for Loch Ness was lost..."

"...today the Scottish Highland Regional Council granted permission to allow the exploitation of the hills above Glenmoriston and Loch Ness.... to build sixteen huge wind turbines, turbines the size of 40 storey apartment blocks. Now there will be very few places around Loch Ness that they cannot be seen. And they will dominate Glenmoriston, Scotland's most beautiful glen, to an extent never imagined in the minds of the local people of fifty years ago who, in their wisdom, decided democratically that hydro power - green power - was such an important innovation that they must accept it. In their certain knowledge they decided that it be built underground. Today the hydro dams and power stations of Glenmoriston have been delivering superb and reliable green power for fifty years and if you visited Glenmoriston today you would never know they existed... It is fair to say that the destruction of Glenmoriston and the whole of South Loch Ness was done in the name of ten Megawatts.... But it isn't now and never was about electricity.... [It is about] the cunning beauty of money. Any money will do."

"...Councillors elected by us do not represent us... They represent a mythology, an idea spread nationwide. That idea consists roughly of the certainty we are going to die... unless we build wind farms. How this idea became so widely propogated I have no idea. Nor does anyone else... The idea consists of the current theology of global warming. Any recent experience of climate in the UK will question this. In fact it will deny it, but that is never enough to overcome the deadly fear that death is coming and it's coming soon. Actually this idea is patently absurd. Check it out if you wish. But even if this idea was true, how would the windfarm in Glenmoriston, Loch Ness alter this? Well it won't. It won't do anything at all to change climate. It won't even change the electricity cycle in the highlands of Scotland. What it will do though, is to change the polluting position of an Italian multinational. The certificates obtained from Glenmoriston will allow that company to further offset its emissions and to increase pollution in Italy. I hope the Italians are grateful, although what does this effect do to us?

"Simple really, it destroys the crown jewel of Scotland - Loch Ness..."

"But never forget - it is fashionable, nay important, to be green. No matter what it costs."

[Click headline for complete article.]

On April 27, 2004, Montreal’s French language newspaper 'La Presse' published a cover story titled “Les éoliennes ne tiennent pas leurs promesses.” [Translation above.]

The article explained how Groupe Axor, the owner/operator of Canada's largest wind power facility had recently filed a formal report with the Quebec Energy Board. The report contained data on wind speeds and power output gathered over a five-year period at the company’s two wind plants, located in Matane and Cap-Chat, Quebec. Electrical production, the company had to confess, was much lower than expected.

The “La Presse” newspaper article and the Axor Groupe report are the subject of an e-mail message, signed by 'Jaro,' and posted on a discussion group hosted by Vanderbilt University. [Click headline.]

Quotes from the email message by ‘Jaro’-
“The results [in the report] are quite shocking to windmill advocates....”

“The La Presse article continued, "Axor relied on the economic models
prepared by internationally reputed experts, but their forecasts proved far
too optimistic.”

“Because of [the] poor performance, electricity produced by windmills in the
Gaspésie is much more expensive than forecast and Axor keeps losing money
with its two plants, whose energy is sold to Hydro-Quebec."

“...evidently, someone was yet again trying to downplay the drastic difference between optimistic projections of wind-power advocates, and real-life experience!!”

[Thank you Jaro.]

P.S. Greenpeace of Canada was very annoyed by the La Presse story and issued a statement, in French.

[click photo for large format]

Friday, July 1st, 2005. 5-8 PM, Route 6, Exit 5 Overpass.

The steady stream of horn honking and ‘thumbs up’ signals inspired an informal survey. Results: A clear majority of drivers and passengers disapprove of Cape Wind Associates’ efforts to build an industrial project in the center of Nantucket Sound.

Not everyone agrees that union's project improves the view.

By Maria Cramer, Globe Staff July 1, 2005

[click headline for full story]

"It does not make much noise. It barely moves, actually."
''It's atrocious," said Lam Nguyen, 19, of Beach Street.
''It's a big goofy-looking thing," said Chris O'Connor, 28, of Orchardfield Street