The Counter Cape Wind Blog

WINDMILLS FOOL RADAR

CAPE COD TIMES
By Kevin Dennehy and David Schoetz

Defense officials say large, industrial wind turbines such as those proposed for Nantucket Sound can interfere with military radar systems if built in the radar's line of sight, according to a report released yesterday.

[Read the report at WindStop.org]

Based on the report's conclusions, the officials have asked for more analysis about whether the proposed 130-turbine Cape Wind project would interfere with an Air Force radar station in Sagamore.

The 62-page report, prepared for Congress by the Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, specifically concludes that previous analysis of the effects on the PAVE PAWS radar station were ''overly simplified and technically flawed.''

The report calls for a more comprehensive study ''on an expedited basis.''

That conclusion stands in stark contrast to earlier correspondence from federal officials that found the Nantucket Sound project would pose no hazard.

In fact, whenever questions about radar interference were brought up before, Cape Wind officials would cite a 2003 letter from the Federal Aviation Administration that affirmed ''no hazard'' to aviation, and a 2004 Air Force letter that said the project would ''pose no threat to the operation of the PAVE PAWS radar.''

The new Department of Defense findings echo similar a 2005 British report, which concluded that turbine blades can produce ''hole(s) in detection'' for military radar systems.

''It validates the claims we've been making: that this is a very serious problem,'' said Cliff Carroll, a wind farm opponent and co-founder of windstop.org. ''The real risks of this project are really starting to show themselves.''

For the Cape Wind developers, the radar question is just the latest in a series of thorny issues to emerge since the proposal was unveiled five years ago.

Among other concerns, Cape Wind proponents have had to answer to charges that the project - which would be the nation's first offshore wind farm - would threaten birds, regional fishing and boat navigation.

The proposal remains the subject of an intense federal review by the Department of Interior.

Earlier this year, U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, the Cape's congressman and a Cape Wind critic, asked federal officials to investigate how the 417-foot turbines would affect military and civilian radar. Of particular concern for Delahunt were potential effects at the PAVE PAWS station, which is located on the northwest corner of Camp Edwards and is one of just two fixed-site early warning radar systems in the nation.

Some have asked whether the turbines would create ''clutter'' or an ''undesired reflected signal return,'' according to the Defense report, when the radar signal returns to the Cape station. One of the findings of the Defense study is large turbine blades can ''appear to a radar as a 'moving' target of significant size if they are within the radar line of sight.''

While the report says there are potential technologies to minimize the effects on radar, it adds that ''only a few'' have been proven.

Carroll, who has been pushing the issue of radar interference for more than two years, yesterday called the new report ''a huge deal.''

Cape Wind officials, however, took a cautious approach responding to the Defense report. ''We need to take some time to study this report,'' said Mark Rodgers, a Cape Wind spokesman. ''I'm probably going to leave it there for today.''

Barbara Hill, executive director of Clean Power Now, a local organization that supports the wind farm proposal, said additional Defense analysis is important, as long as the process is open to the public and done in a timely fashion.

''This blip on the radar screen is just that,'' Hill said, referring to many hurdles the renewable energy proposal has overcome during the review process. ''We will learn from this and we will get this built.''

# posted by NMG @ 10:47 AM

Cape Light Compact Shelves Position Statement

By DAVID SCHOETZ
Cape Cod Times, Sept. 15, 2006

BARNSTABLE - Wary of giving the slightest appearance of a Cape Wind endorsement, the Cape Light Compact governing board this week tabled a resolution supporting renewable energy.

The governing board, made up of appointees from all 21 towns on Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard, has resisted taking a formal position on the offshore wind farm proposed for Nantucket Sound despite lobbying efforts by the project's supporters - including Cape Wind developer Jim Gordon - and opponents.

The Compact, which represents the combined interests of the region's electric consumers, considered a resolution in June that conditionally backed the development of wind energy off the Cape's coast. After the effort failed, the contentious Cape Wind issue was tabled for the summer.

This week, board members, who are appointed by local leaders, discussed a much broader resolution that recognized the need to confront a dangerous reliance on fossil fuels by embracing various renewable energy technologies. ''This resolution is not to be construed as the Compact supporting any particular development,'' the language read.

But that assurance failed to satisfy board members, who ultimately voted 11-5 to indefinitely table the resolution and, effectively, any further discussion about Cape Wind.

''This causes so much controversy,'' said Audrey Loughnane, Barnstable's Compact member and one of the most vocal critics of the resolution. ''We all know it's about the wind farm,'' she said.

Robert Jones, the Sandwich member, agreed that backing the proposed resolution would be perceived by the public as the Compact's support for Cape Wind. In the past, Jones has reminded some board members that the towns they represent have taken formal positions against the proposed wind farm. He also said the Compact already supports renewable energy.

In addition to offering customers a renewable ''green'' power option at a premium price, one of the agency's goals listed in the Compact's governing document is ''to utilize and encourage renewable energy development to the extent practicable.''

At the end of September, the Compact will receive the results of a $100,000 study to determine whether becoming an electricity cooperative would benefit Cape and Vineyard customers. A cooperative model could allow the Compact to own and operate local renewable energy projects and enter into long-term wholesale pricing contracts, which Gordon says he wants.

But to Chris Powicki, principal of Water Energy & Ecology Information Services and a Compact watchdog, the resolution's specific recognition that renewable energy sources ''would better serve'' the region than fossil fuel sources would have been a valuable step.

Powicki criticized the agency for allowing the politics of the Cape Wind issue to undercut a resolution that so clearly avoided an endorsement. ''This benign resolution gives them an opportunity to step beyond the 800-pound gorilla and take a proactive stance,'' he said.

Not every board member was against taking up the resolution. Richard Philbrick of Orleans, for example, said the group tasked with representing the region's electricity interests sits around ''quibbling'' while a utility-scale renewable energy project is proposed locally. ''We talk about a kilowatt here, a kilowatt there,'' Philbrick said. ''This is one of the few places you can get megawatts.''

But Barry Worth, the Harwich member, seemed to summarize the agency's consensus opinion on Cape Wind. ''It would be nice if it would just go away,'' he said.

David Schoetz can be reached at dschoetz@capecodonline.com.
(Published: September 15, 2006)
Copyright © Cape Cod Times. All rights reserved.

# posted by NMG @ 9:27 AM

Green campaigners welcomed the rejection, saying wind farms are not always in the right place.

"Ministers say no to plan for giant wind turbines in beauty spot"

The Scotsman, Sat 9 Sep 2006

John Ross

PLANS to build a new wind farm in a Perthshire beauty spot were rejected by the Scottish Executive yesterday because of concerns that it could damage the environment.

Catamount Energy Ltd proposed to install 24 wind turbines, up to 104m (341ft) high, at Abercairny, near Crieff. The 66-megawatt development would produce enough power to supply 40,000 households.

But after a public inquiry held last year, the inquiry reporter concluded the development, which attracted more than 200 objections, would have a significant adverse impact on the local environment. It was recommended for refusal as it would not help to preserve the natural beauty of the area.

It was also felt that some areas of historical and architectural interest may be affected by the wind farm.

Ministers announced yesterday they supported the reporter's recommendation. Allan Wilson, the deputy enterprise minister, said: "I am withholding consent in this instance.

"We have a commitment to generate 40 per cent of Scotland's electricity from renewables by 2020. And we are making good progress.

"Our aim remains to ensure that we take advantage of Scotland's extensive renewables potential while safeguarding our natural heritage. In short, the circumstances must be right for all new renewable energy developments."

The rejection was welcomed yesterday by local politicians who opposed the project. Mark Ruskell, the Green MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, said: "On balance this is the right decision because the Abercairny proposal was in a completely inappropriate location.

"I hope this now clears the way for better wind-farm applications in the area such as Griffin Forest to be given a fair hearing at the next round of public inquiries. Ultimately there are limits to the number of wind farms that any landscape can accommodate, so we must support good applications in the right place while rejecting those that are poorly thought through."

Murdo Fraser, the Mid Scotland and Fife Conservative MSP, spoke against the wind farm at the public inquiry. He said it would have had a negative impact on the local tourism economy because of the damage it would cause to the scenery. He said: "It is tremendous news that Abercairny wind farm has been rejected. "The proposed wind farm was sited in the wrong area, would have had a negative impact on the local economy and would have damaged the surrounding environment.

"It would have been a mistake if this wind-farm proposal was given the green light and the Scottish ministers have seen sense in declining it."

Mr Fraser said the rejection of the application is another example of the planning system for Scotland's renewable energy being in chaos and new guidelines are needed. "I want to see Scotland lead the way in renewable technology, including onshore wind farms. However, without the necessary guidelines and funding from the Scottish Executive, then it is inevitable that unacceptable applications like the one at Abercairny will arise."

Ian McCall, the campaign and policy co-ordinator with the Ramblers' Association Scotland, said the decision sends a clear signal to wind-farm developers. "We now expect most planning applications for 100m-plus turbines in the Scottish hills to be rejected. These industrial monsters will not fit into most Scottish landscapes - their place is well offshore."

He added: "At long last the government appears ready to constrain the relentless march of giant wind turbines across our world famous landscapes."

A spokesman for Catamount Energy said: "We are disappointed and we are reviewing the report." The company said previously that the wind farm would have no adverse effect on the area and that there would be no significant negative visual effects on settlements, designated landscape and local tourist destinations.

Energy not quite as free as the wind

The Business Day, South Africa
23 August 2006

Oliver Marc Hartwich
Planning and environmental research fellow at UK think-tank Policy Exchange.

CAPE Town has, with much fanfare, just embraced wind power, that green panacea of sustainable and clean energy. But we are most unlikely to hear of its cost, its inefficiency and, indeed, its damage to the environment. We will hear that wind power helps curb our greenhouse-gas emissions, makes the country less dependent on fossil fuels and energy imports and — the icing on the cake — also creates jobs. Surely this is the solution to many of the world’s biggest problems? To see if these alleged benefits actually stand up to closer scrutiny, let us look at a country held up as a shining example: Germany.

Since the 1980s, Germany’s government has promoted and subsidised wind energy with wide political support. In 1991, all parties backed a law forcing utilities to buy electricity from wind-energy firms at 90% of the average retail price, making suppliers and consumers pay for the growth of wind farms.

Building wind farms became popular among farmers seeking extra income from pastures and among underutilised shipyards with skilled labour and trying to diversify. Many schemes were in underdeveloped regions, so many local politicians backed them. Later, investors in wind energy could also deduct investments against tax, making the deal attractive for high earners.

So wind energy came to be promoted by a wide range of people who could hide their special interests behind the screen of green slogans.

Incentives improved further with the Renewable Energies Act in 2000. This abolished the link to retail energy prices, which had fallen thanks to liberalisation of the electricity market, and replaced it with a guaranteed price of €0,091/kWh for wind farms, a good three times the German average production cost of electricity of €0,025 to €0,03.

Germany produces about 3,1% of its electricity from wind energy, but this comes at the cost of an annual subsidy of €4bn or so. But what about the alleged benefits for the economy and the environment? It is often claimed wind power has created 45000 jobs in Germany. But with a large subsidy anyone can create jobs, although, at more than €80000 a job a year, it would be cheaper to send workers on permanent vacation in a tropical paradise.

Wind farms actually lower employment, thanks to higher energy prices for the economy, according to the Bremer Energie Institut. If the economic effects were not bad enough, it also seems ecological benefits of German wind energy exist only in the imagination of its supporters. First, the wind in Germany is unreliable, so wind generators operate at full capacity for about 1400 hours a year on average – just more than 58 days’ worth.

Britain, claiming better wind, still only managed to reach a third of its wind-power capacity in the very windy year of 1998, according to its trade and industry department. So every wind turbine still needs full conventional energy backup.

Even if wind power did decrease the amount of carbon emissions from conventional electricity firms, those utilities could sell on those carbon savings to anyone else: “carbon emission trading” gives companies an emission allowance, and allows them to buy or sell it, locally or internationally.

A 2004 report for Germany’s federal economics ministry showed carbon reduction would be zero, at the considerable cost of higher energy prices.

Another concealed environmental problem is carbon emissions from manufacturing turbines. The wind sector is now the second-biggest consumer of steel, after car makers, in Germany.

At lower wind speeds you need more than 10 tons of iron for a given output, compared with about two tons for coal, one for gas and half a ton for nuclear.

Germany’s wind energy promotion has been extremely expensive, and has probably destroyed jobs. Its ecological benefits under carbon trading are nonexistent, and it needs full conventional backup.

The German experience does not prove that wind energy can never be viable, but it does show that state interference with the market can create enormous economic and ecological distortions.

If wind energy really is the energy of the future it must prove itself in the market without state subsidies, but this has not yet happened anywhere.

Cape Town is asking for a voluntary levy of 25c/kWh from businesses, and is relying on sponsorship and soft loans. In the end, these extra costs come down to levies on taxpayers and consumers.

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

# posted by NMG @ 7:11 PM

From Windpower Monthly
September 2006

"Selected abstracts"
"Twin pillars of Spanish wind market axed — decree removes wind subsidy and price guarantee."

"The legal basis of the production incentives driving Spain's wind market is now time bombed to disappear in the new year thanks to a new energy law, put together behind the industry's back and passed by government emergency decree. The law will remove the twin pillars supporting the market—a production incentive payment and the safety net of a guaranteed minimum purchase price. Confidence in the Spanish wind market, one of the world's top three, is "shattered" says an industry spokesman. "Projects that should have closed in the past few weeks have been paralysed and others annulled." Read why the government has taken such a drastic step and what the industry is saying about it in the September issue of Windpower Monthly."

# posted by NMG @ 2:26 AM

By DAVID SCHOETZ
STAFF WRITER
Cape Cod Times

Cliff Carroll can debate Cape Wind with the best of them.

But with all the huffing and puffing surrounding the wind farm controversy, Carroll also plays the role of tactician.

By his own account, the work he's done with the British Ministry of Defence on the effect wind turbines might have on military radar systems helped prompt a closer look by federal officials here into the issue. Their final report could be released in the next few months, according to a U.S. Department of Defense spokesman.

Another concern that Carroll, a local mortgage broker and founder of Windstop.org, has pursued aggressively is the impact an oil spill at the wind farm's transformer station would have on the coastlines of the Cape and Islands.

A report prepared by Cape Wind consultants made public this week by the Minerals Management Service concluded that if a major spill did occur at the project's electrical service platform - which would hold up to 40,000 gallons of lubricating oil - there's a greater than 90 percent chance the oil would reach the shoreline.

Based on oil flow and tide studies of Nantucket Sound, consultants from Applied Science Associates in Narragansett, R.I. found that the south shore of the Cape and eastern shore of Martha's Vineyard would likely face the biggest danger and that in extreme conditions, the oil could reach land in less than five hours.

''This is an unacceptable risk,'' said Carroll, who also questioned why it took so long for Cape Wind to release the study and the developer's unwillingness to specify the type of oil that would be used in the transformer station.

The electricity generated by the 130-turbine wind farm would pass through the station, which would stand 100 feet above Nantucket Sound, before two cables transmitted the power to a West Yarmouth landfall.

''This is the mother lode of this industrial complex,'' said Ernie Corrigan, a spokesman for the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, a local group working to kill the renewable energy proposal. ''It is the beating heart of the industrial complex that's going to sit in the middle of Nantucket Sound.''

In 2004, Carroll lobbied the nine ocean-facing towns on Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket to send letters asking the federal government to request more information from Cape Wind about oil spill trajectories, as well as an oil spill response plan.

The 32-page report has been filed by Cape Wind with Minerals Management Services, a division of the Department of the Interior now overseeing the multi-agency Cape Wind review.

Mark Rodgers, a Cape Wind spokesman, said last week the possibility of an oil spill is a legitimate concern.

Still, he cautioned blowing the report's findings out of proportion.

''It's one of many factors that needs to be considered,'' Rodgers said. ''But I'm concerned that opponents are trying to use this to scare the public.''

The transformer station, Rodgers said, would include a triple containment system and the oil, which is used as a coolant, would be of low toxicity, somewhere between a vegetable oil and a petroleum-based, highly refined oil.

Asked why he couldn't be more specific, Rodgers said Cape Wind developer Jim Gordon has not hired the subcontractor yet that would oversee the transformer station.

As for keeping the report from the public, Rodgers scoffed. ''The public has access to more information and technical analysis for the Cape Wind project than they have had for any electric generating plant ever built in New England,'' he said.

What's more, he added, one of the few options for local electricity generation is the fossil-fuel-burning Mirant Canal power plant in Sandwich, which requires regular shipments of oil.

And, as in the case of the 2003 Buzzards Bay disaster that spilled nearly 100,000 gallons of No. 6 fuel oil into local waters, such shipments present a risk.

Rodgers' defense did little to appease Carroll. ''Any oil is a hazardous material once it enters into the aquatic environment,'' he said. ''They're picking and choosing what they want to show the public.''

The Minerals Management Service expects to issue a draft environmental report for Cape Wind this winter, which the public can comment on, before releasing a final report and decision in 2007.

---------------------------
Click here for the Cape Cod Times Cape Wind web page

He's Urged To Consider New Nuclear Plants

The Caledonian Record
By Robin Smith, Staff Writer

- NEWPORT CITY -- Gov. Jim Douglas took his clearest position yet on industrial wind projects in Vermont on Friday, saying they would be "an imposition" on Vermont's landscape.

Industrial wind turbines on ridge lines would not aesthetically suit Vermont's small scale landscape, Douglas, a Republican, said at a brainstorming session with leaders of large and small businesses Friday afternoon at the Gateway Center.

To give up Vermont's brand for an energy source that could only produce 6 percent of Vermont's energy needs isn't a good idea, Douglas said.

"I can't make the case there's enough gain for the pain," he said.

"I just don't think it's worth it."

Douglas said he has seen the wind farms in Quebec on the Gaspe Peninsula. "I think they are quite intrusive," he said. [Click headline for full story.]

TSUKUBA, Ibaraki -- The Tsukuba municipal government has decided to pull the plug on a wind generation project after spending hundreds of millions of yen on wind turbines designed by Waseda University that turned out to be a flop.

In announcing that the city had decided to put an end to the project, Tsukuba Mayor Kenichi Ichihara cited problems with the turbines.

"The fact that they don't spin even if there is wind means there is a problem with them," Ichihara told a news conference on Friday. "We've got no option but to halt the project."

In April this year the Tsukuba Municipal Government filed a lawsuit in the Tokyo District Court demanding some 300 million yen in damages from Waseda University.

The wind turbine project proposed installing 75 turbines at 52 elementary and junior high schools in the city over a three-year period. Last year 23 generators were installed at 19 schools at a total cost of about 298 million yen.

But in November last year, it emerged that the turbines were not generating the expected level of power. The project was frozen in February this year. Ichihara said the city would have to wait for the outcome of the lawsuit against Waseda before deciding what to do with the turbines that had already been installed.

The Ministry of the Environment conducted its own investigation on the problem and informed the city in July that wind conditions in the city were light, and that not enough research had been carried out before the turbines were installed. The ministry asked the city to take steps to improve the situation, saying there were suggestions that the municipal government should return a grant of about 185 million yen, but the city expressed the opinion that there were "no concrete improvement measures."

# posted by NMG @ 9:55 AM

Press Release
August 31, 2006

Patrick and Gabrieli Blow it On Cape Wind

HYANNIS – Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey and running mate Reed Hillman today criticized Democratic gubernatorial candidates Deval Patrick and Chris Gabrieli for supporting Cape Wind. Healey and Hillman oppose Cape Wind on the grounds that it will negatively impact the small businesses and tourism industry that depend on Nantucket Sound for their livelihoods.

"Cape Wind is the wrong project in the wrong place, and both Patrick and Gabrieli are putting their short-term political goals ahead of what’s best for the long-term future of Massachusetts," Healey said. "Their support for this project is as short-sighted as their plans to add billions of dollars in new spending that will no doubt require a tax increase."

The project would allow a private developer to install giant wind turbines across 24 square miles of Nantucket Sound. As governor, Healey said she will fight to defeat this attempt to allow a private company to essentially take over Horseshoe Shoals to erect a power plant.

Earlier this month, Healey unveiled a comprehensive energy plan for Massachusetts that focused on energy efficiency, increased regional supplies and embraced new technologies – including hydropower and deep water wind turbines – to deliver additional energy without damaging the Commonwealth’s coastlines.

"I don’t know how Deval Patrick and Chris Gabrieli can justify handing over a public resource like Horseshoe Shoals to a private developer," Hillman said. "They are ignoring the local families and businesses that have raised serious concerns about Cape Wind and the negative impact the project will have on their jobs and local economy."

Among the groups facing the greatest threat is the Massachusetts fishing industry. Nantucket Sound has been used by generations of fishing families, and the installation of 130 wind turbines will impair the fleet’s ability to operate in an area that is proven to have consistent, sustainable fish stocks for both commercial and recreational fishermen.

"I applaud Kerry Healey’s opposition to Cape Wind. She’s worked closely with the Massachusetts fishing industry and knows the challenges we face and the burdensome regulations we already endure," said Ed Barrett, President of the Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership. "Constructing Cape Wind and adding the navigation and access restrictions that are certain to follow will be the final nail in the coffin for a lot of fishing families who have been working on Nantucket Sound for generations."
---------------------
Healey, Hillman Roll Out Plan to Meet Future Energy Needs
Comprehensive plan combines renewable and alternative energy sources with tax incentives.