The Counter Cape Wind Blog

Harwich Oracle
By Bill Fonda
Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Wind power, yes. Cape Wind, no.

That was the consensus of the majority among more than 1,100 people who took part in the Harwich Oracle’s and its three sister publications’ survey conducted on the web over a two-week period earlier this summer. The goal was to gauge public opinion about wind energy and specifically, the proposal by Cape Wind to build a wind farm in Nantucket Sound.

Nearly 88 percent of respondents supported wind energy, yet they were against Cape Wind’s plans to build a 130-turbine wind farm on Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound by a 57.9 percent to 41.7 percent margin.

Charles Vinick, chief executive officer and president of wind farm opponent the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, said the results track closely with nonbinding referendums in Mashpee last year and Nantucket this year.

"People clearly are in favor of wind energy, as is the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, but the vast majority believe we should not sacrifice Nantucket Sound for that endeavor," he said.

Drilling down into the results based on the ZIP codes of survey takers, the newspaper found that 33 percent of respondents from the 15 communities that face Nantucket Sound say they support the project. The approval percentage jumps to 56 among respondents who live or own property in 11 non-Sound-facing towns.

In Harwich, the majority favors the wind farm project, but in Harwich Port, the majority voted overwhelmingly against it.

"It affects [Sound-facing] towns more," Vinick said. "They take the time to study it, and they’re more engaged in the issue."

In a written response to the poll, Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rodgers said, "The National Council on Public Polls, the American Association for Public Opinion Research and the American Statistical Association have all stated clearly that self-selecting polls, like [this one], can only represent the views of those who participate."

"It does not represent the views of the Cape and Islands population that can be estimated only by using a scientific poll based on random sampling," he said. "That is probably why these poll results are so different from previous scientific polls that show anywhere from an even split to majority support for Cape Wind among residents of the Cape and Islands," Rodgers said.

He added that Cape Wind’s response would be the same had the numbers indicated greater support for its project.

Mark Skala, editor in chief of the Harwich Oracle, noted that the newspaper "never said the poll was scientific."

"It’s about what people feel, and we’re representing some of those views. You can interpret it anyway you want," said Skala.

Once the survey closed, a random audit was conducted of 15 percent of the respondents, who were asked to verify their participation. Of the total number, about 14 e-mails were returned address unknown. All other respondents confirmed their participation.
--------------------------------

Samples of Anti-Cape Wind Comments

"It will uglify the area, decrease property values, ferment civil discord and threaten wildlife while doing virtually nothing to affect meaningful change in our energy policies."

"The Sound is the economic engine of Cape Cod. An industrial complex will weaken its strength/viability. It is simply the wrong place and wrong time to ’give away’ one of our national treasures."

"The rich get richer by screwing the majority out of their heritage, quality of life and value. Turbines take it away."

"It is not worth the risk to our marine environment, or our reputation as ’beautiful Cape Cod.’"

"I feel that with hurricane-force winds, these structures could easily fall apart, sending debris flying through the air, causing damage. Also, I see fuel leaks from the turbines causing problems."

"It’s a blight in an area that is supposed to be primarily for vacations."

"Nantucket Sound will be destroyed by the wind farm. How can someone come along and steal an area in use by all? Cape Wind are a bunch of thieves and should be treated as such."

Long Island Business News
Friday, August 25, 2006

By Jean Paul Vellotti

When the wind blows, the turbines will rock – when it doesn’t, there’s trouble.
At least, for those who would put a wind farm off Long Island’s South Shore. During the hottest days of this year, as energy consumption records fell across the Island, there was nary a breeze – and not nearly enough wind to power the turbines of the Long Island Power Authority’s proposed Offshore Wind Park to their 140-megawatt capacity, according to Suffolk County Leg. Wayne Horsley, D-Babylon.

Horsely said he has wind data collected during this summer’s heat wave and plans to release it as part of a comprehensive report later this month. However, existing reports from the Suffolk County Budget Review Office and data from the National Weather Service and proposed wind park builder FPL Energy already support Horsley’s claims. (Those reports are based on wind levels in 2005 and earlier.)

According to the Budget Review Office, the proposed park’s maximum power output at any given August moment would be between 10.3 and 37.5 megawatts – a far cry from LIPA’s estimates of 140 megawatts. Those numbers are based on a historical trend showing wind patterns over Long Island’s South Shore during August – a time when additional power generation is needed most – are weak.

Dan Zaweski, LIPA’s assistant vice president of energy efficiency and distributed generation, acknowledges the findings – to a point. Where the turbines’ blades would actually be situated, he said, there’s enough wind.

"Generally, on hot days, there’s not a lot of wind blowing," Zaweski said. "But using modeling at hub height and three miles out, there is some wind blowing."
The technology planned for the 40-turbine site, which would be located approximately 3.5 miles from Jones Beach, allows some power to be produced even if the turbines aren’t spinning to total potential. Zaweski estimated that even at winds of 8 mph, power would be generated, but he didn’t give any exact numbers.

Zaweski has requested wind data for the days during the 2006 heat wave, but has not yet received the information – and therefore could not calculate exactly how much power could be generated.

By using wind-speed figures during previous peak power consumption days, however, LIPA and AWS Scientific Inc. – an Albany-based company that studies wind patterns – were able to create an estimate. Zaweski said those findings show the wind park would produce approximately one-third of the park’s capacity, between 40 and 50 megawatts. "That’s still a sizeable load," he said.

AWS Scientific stated in a 2002 report it prepared for LIPA and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority that wind farms need wind speeds of 18 mph to be economically viable. According to that study – which measured wind data at a 213-foot hub height over a 15-year period – the proposed location of LIPA’s turbines would not meet the 18-mph requirement. AWS Scientific also recommended that "for serious consideration," offshore wind development must be moved further offshore, which means deeper waters.

That’s welcome news for Horsley, who cautions that before Long Island makes a commitment to any wind park project, every option needs to be explored.
"My concern with the LIPA project is that we are going to spend $400 million, which has to be paid by ratepayers, and then LIPA has to pay $40 million to build a power cable, plus $100 million in decommissioning costs which LIPA has to pick up," Horsley said. "I think you could surely get more energy for $500 million through other projects. "We should not run headlong into a project that can get better with second-generation technology," the legislator added.

One alternative project has been proposed by Winergy Power LLC, which is pitching a three-turbine test facility off the Plum Island coast. If testing proves successful, Winergy has expressed interest in creating a privately funded 200-turbine project much farther out, at least 20 miles off Long Island’s South Shore.

But unlike the LIPA project, which would funnel all generated electricity to Long Island, sources say Winergy would sell the majority of power from its project to Con Edison. According to data buoys 20 and 30 miles off the South Shore operated by the National Data Buoy Center, winds were also weak in that area during this summer’s heat wave. Those measurements, however, were made 15 feet above the water’s surface. The NWS said it did not have wind data at hub height.

The editiorial below, published in the August 20th issue of the West Virginia newspaper The Charleston Gazette, exposes the false promises behind all wind power projects, including the Cape Wind proposal.


Wind Energy: A looming disaster for West Virginia

Vincent A. Collins

The Charleston Gazette
August 20, 2006

Most editorial writers, politicians and ordinary citizens don’t really know enough about wind energy to properly evaluate whether it will be a benefit or detriment to West Virginia. Nearly all of the information they receive comes either from wind project developers, who have an obvious financial interest, or “environmentalists,” many of whom are so ideologically committed to alternative energy that any facts not supporting their world view are summarily rejected.

However, any reasonably intelligent, objective person willing to spend some time studying the issue will inevitably conclude that wind power will provide virtually no benefits to West Virginia, and that the costs and negative effects imposed by wind power on our citizens will be enormous. Here are a few facts to consider:

The primary motivation for building “wind farms,” as they are euphemistically called by promoters, is to take advantage of the extraordinary tax credits and income sheltering opportunities available to wind energy developers and investors at the expense of all taxpayers. As a result of millions of dollars expended by wind promoters on intense and sophisticated lobbying, Congress has provided such generous tax benefits that wind energy is the most heavily subsidized form of electric generation in the country. West Virginia is especially attractive, since wind facilities are assessed at only 5 percent of their actual value for state tax purposes. These subsidies are so lucrative that wind farm investors can’t help but become even richer, to the tune of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.

A July 31 Wall Street Journal article touted the fact that investors can easily earn 9 to 15 percent returns from wind farms with almost no risk, so long as the government continues its huge subsidies. These subsidies might be justified if wind energy actually could replace a significant portion of coal and other fossil fuel-generated electricity, but unfortunately, it can’t.

Windmills are very inefficient. They produce electricity only when wind speeds exceed about 8 mph, and must be shut down or “feathered” when wind speeds exceed approximately 55 mph. “Rated capacity” is only achieved at wind speeds in excess of approximately 33 mph. In West Virginia where wind is unreliable, wind turbines will produce their rated capacity less than 30 percent of the time. In other words, 70 percent of the time, they produce little or no electricity. Unlike coal, gas, nuclear and other forms of power generation, which produce electricity nearly continuously, windmills are an intermittent source of power. Most of the wind in West Virginia occurs during the winter months, while peak electricity demand occurs in the summer months.

Because electricity cannot be stored on a commercial scale, in order to actually use the energy produced by windmills, more, not fewer, coal-fired power plants will have to be built to provide capacity back-up. Some locations with more reliable winds (such as European North Atlantic countries) may run more efficient windmills, but the effect of siting windmills in West Virginia and other lower-wind areas in the United States will be an increase in the burning of fossil fuels and attendant global warming. This may come as a shock to many who have been led to believe that wind energy will displace fossil fuel generation, but this is precisely what is occurring at the Cape Wind facility proposed to be built off the coast of Massachusetts. The developers of that wind project now plan to build a fossil fuel plant to back up the windmills when the wind isn’t blowing. Wind energy developers’ professed commitment to helping the environment should not be taken seriously.

One of the most common fraudulent claims of wind energy advocates is that a given number of windmills will power a certain number of homes. The numbers cited assume that the turbines are producing their rated capacity 100 percent of the time. But even reducing this figure by 70 percent is misleading, because a wind plant would only “power” homes whose occupants are willing to use electricity only when the wind is blowing at the proper speed. Because of this and the need for conventional generation backup, windmills will actually power “0” homes, regardless of how many are built.

Worse yet, the electricity generated by conventional plants becomes much more expensive and inefficiently produced when wind energy is thrown into the mix. These stable sources of electricity must constantly attempt to adjust their output through a complex grid and monitoring system. In order to assure adequate capacity at all times, they will have to overgenerate to compensate for unpredictable wind plant output, thus burning even more fossil fuels.

Against this backdrop of essential uselessness, increased burning of fossil fuels and increased costs to consumers, we must then consider the harm that wind farms will impose on others who don’t receive any of the supposed benefits, such as people who are unfortunate enough to live near wind plants and those of us who, selfishly, don’t want to see West Virginia’s mountains destroyed.

Developers and proponents of wind energy claim that there will be virtually no harm. No reduction in property values, no noise, no significant damage to wildlife and no reduction in our ability to enjoy our mountains.

Developers typically dredge up a long-discredited industry- backed “study” and manipulated statistics to “prove” that wind farms will not reduce property values. While this may be true for wind farms built in the middle of the Mojave Desert, do you really believe that thousands of slowly spinning industrial wind turbines, each much taller than the Statute of Liberty, strung along hundreds of miles of our most scenic ridges with attendant noise and strobe lights will not decrease property values? Perhaps someone should ask a Realtor what effect a proposed wind farm might have on prospective purchasers of land within the viewshed. I was recently told by a Realtor that he had more than 15 prospects for the purchase of such a parcel of land, but when plans for a wind farm were disclosed, none of these prospects expressed any further interest.

When the first small-scale wind farms were built in Tucker County, W. Va., and Somerset County, Pa., the developers agreed to fund a study on bat and bird kills. When it quickly became evident that these few turbines were killing literally thousands of birds and bats (including eagles, hawks and other rare species), the developers quickly withdrew their funding, barred scientists from entering the facilities to pursue follow-up work and completely pulled the plug on further research at its facilities. So much for seeking the facts.

The noise issue is tricky. Generally, if one stands near a single turbine, the noise is not very loud. But from longer distances of a mile or more and especially during the night when sounds travel farther, the noise produced by each of a group of turbines amplifies the others to produce a continuous loud, irritating low-frequency thumping that disturbs sleep and has resulted in people seeking medical help.

Finally, the wind developers claim that thousands of 450-foot monster turbines, turning propellers with diameters approaching the length of a football field, covering our most beautiful forested ridges will not reduce the aesthetic value of these mountains. Further, they claim that any concern for aesthetics is subjective and based more upon “feelings” than facts. This is preposterous. If even a small percentage of the thousands of wind turbines planned are built, they will transform entire regions of our state. Our once-beautiful state will not only suffer aesthetic damage, but will suffer profound economic damage, as vast unspoiled areas are converted to industrial wasteland. The constantly rotating huge structures relentlessly draw the eye, even if one tries to avoid viewing them. A typical reaction from people who live in the vicinity of wind farms is “they make me sick in the stomach every time I see them.” This is not the West Virginia I want my children and grandchildren to inherit.

The only way to prevent this mass destruction of our mountains is to become knowledgeable, inform our representatives of our concerns and be very skeptical of the claims of the latest industry seeking to exploit the Mountain State.

Vincent Collins is a lawyer with Steptoe & Johnson in Morgantown, West Virginia.

Wind Power Report Shows Facts Instead of Myths
ABS Energy Research's 2006 Wind Power Report
Press Release from ABS Energy Research

August 8, 2006

London, UK --- Despite rapid growth in this renewable energy resource, ABS Energy Research's latest report highlights new evidence from operators, which shows that the benefits claimed for wind power are not always what they seem.

ABS Energy Research's 2006 Wind Power Report details an eventful year in this sector of the renewable energy industry. While generating capacity is up, solid new evidence suggests that some of the costs of producing electricity using the breeze sometimes mean that wind generation is not always unambiguously good. So are industry critics quoting facts or tilting at windmills? [cut]

...The most important findings of this report highlight studies that raise critical concerns challenging some of the claims made for wind power. Badly needed evidence is now available after three years of large scale operation of wind turbines in five countries... These studies are the first real evidence showing how wind actually works, as opposed to what has been claimed, and come from some of the most authoritative voices on energy in the world. Reports from E.On Netz, the system operator with the largest wind power feed-in in the world, and Eltra of Denmark, which had the largest percentage wind power contribution, show disturbing results.

E.On cites a study from the Deutsche-Energie Agentur. The report was sponsored by the German government and all sides of the industry. Among bombshells contained inside, the study suggests that while wind power capacity will reach 48 GW by 2020 in Germany, the source is so intermittent and unreliable that it is equivalent to only 2 GW of stable fossil fuel capacity.

The evidence also shows a mismatch of supply and demand. High pressure weather systems bring cold winters and hot summers which unfortunately coincide with low wind levels. These meteorological realities mean that wind makes its maximum contribution when demand is lowest and its minimum contribution when demand is highest. In 2004, wind accounted for 20 percent of total electricity production in Denmark but supplied only 6 percent of consumption, because it produced a surplus at periods of lowest demand. What's more, 84 percent of Danish wind-generated electricity was exported to Norway, and sold at a loss for Denmark. Furthermore, the Norwegian electricity system uses carbon free hydro power, so the effect of carbon reductions realised in power produced by windmills was nullified.

Also, because of this variability in wind, back-up fossil fuel plants must be operated at low load to maintain system reliability. There is new evidence that shows that switching base load fossil fuel plants on and off to balance a system produces higher carbon emissions than continuous operation, certainly not a supposed benefit from switching to renewable energy sources.

Because wind installations tend to be concentrated in areas with high wind speeds, regional grids are heavily overloaded at times of maximum feed-in. Each country studied reported extreme difficulties in balancing the grid. A further 2,700 km of costly high voltage transmission lines will be required in Germany to accommodate new wind capacity.

It is clear that wind-generated electricity can only work as part of a generation portfolio. The US Department of Energy advocates small local targets within states, most recently proposing targets of 100 MW in each of the 30 states, rather than the huge wind parks favoured in Europe.

ABS Energy Research's report does not relegate wind power to the dustbin. But it does show how essential proper analysis is to establish what renewable energy can and cannot deliver and how it must be accommodated within a total electricity generation system. Objective analysis is essential. Nearly every one of the points described in the study has been labelled a "myth" by a lobby group.

About ABS Energy Research
ABS Energy Research's extensive report was compiled through a comprehensive literature search, the help of the regulators and assistance from governments, energy organisations and metrological bureaux.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For further Information
ABS Energy Research Home
Report Summary and Database Listing

# posted by NMG @ 11:24 AM

By AUDRA PARKER

August 2, 2006
'My View' Column, Cape Cod Times

A curious thing happened while Cape Wind was in the midst of developing what it proudly proclaims to be ''America's first offshore wind farm.'' They decided to also build a diesel power plant in Chelsea, just north of Boston.

The very company that has been sermonizing on the problems of fossil fuel power plants is indeed trying to build one. And this is the same company that talks about ''environmental justice'' in their application to the Department of Interior, and then turns around and announces its intent to build that fossil fuel plant across the street from an elementary school in an impoverished city.

Cape Wind's developer, Energy Management Inc., both headed by Jim Gordon, can pursue any energy development it wants, but what the Chelsea proposal reveals is that Cape Wind's ''green'' is not an environmental shade, but the color of money.

Even Greenpeace, vocal Cape Wind supporters, took a fast step backward recently during a wind energy debate in Chatham by disavowing the Chelsea project.

A little background might be in order to fully understand what all the fuss is about: EMI/Cape Wind is proposing to build a 240-megawatt diesel power plant in Chelsea to provide capacity needed in periods of peak demand. Those periods also typically happen when their wind plant wouldn't be running because of the lack of wind during high-demand periods, such as July and August. They are also trying to capitalize on a $5 billion incentive plan recently announced by federal energy regulators - a plan that Cape Wind and EMI were both advocating for as two of the parties involved. And now they are in a position to directly benefit from the major incentives this plan provides.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) plan, intended to address problems in New England's generation capacity market, provides incentives for both generating capacity and for demand reduction programs. On Cape Wind's Web site, EMI is described as having years of experience in energy conservation and energy development. The question that ought to be troubling Greenpeace and other ''greens'' that support Cape Wind is why EMI isn't proposing energy conservation programs to reduce demand, the other stated goal of the FERC program, instead of proposing to build a pollution-emitting plant that runs on diesel fuel.

The answer is as simple as the reason Cape Wind is choosing to build a 24-square-mile wind energy plant across Nantucket Sound without regard to strong public opposition. As Cape Wind/EMI executive Dennis Duffy told The Boston Globe in rationalizing the Chelsea project: ''We're in the energy business. That's what we do.''

While there is nothing wrong with making a profit, Cape Wind has spent the last five years on the Cape and Islands trying to convince people that their motives for building an offshore wind project were not about money, but about leading the movement toward sustainable clean energy development. They say as little as possible about the more than $1 billion that the Cape Wind project would garner from state ratepayers in public subsidies or the more than $300 million they would get in federal taxpayer subsidies.

Instead, Cape Wind continues to sell its Nantucket Sound project from a green pulpit: Gordon states on Cape Wind's Web site: ''Although important, conservation by itself is not sufficient. Projects like Cape Wind will help meet this growing demand without consuming scarce natural resources or polluting our environment.'' The irony that Cape Wind cannot escape is that its Chelsea project directly conflicts with the benefits that Cape Wind claims will occur if it gets to build its offshore wind plant.

What's the net benefit in air quality if Cape Wind builds a 240-MW diesel plant and a wind plant producing an average of 170 MW? They find themselves now in a philosophical divide that undermines their credibility and ''environmental'' motives.

With both the Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound and the Chelsea diesel plant, the public is paying handsomely through subsidies or tax credits or rate hikes. In both cases, we, the public, are paying Gordon to make money, with the FERC plan being funded by raising rates in an area that already pays among the highest rates in the country.

Whether you call this company Cape Wind or EMI, this developer is about nothing more than pure profit. We should look at Gordon's environmental promises with skepticism, especially when we are largely paying for these promises.

[Audra Parker is the director of strategic planning for the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound.]