The Counter Cape Wind Blog

By DAVID SCHARFENBERG, STAFF WRITER
Cape Cod Times

The wind-energy industry is objecting to federal legislation that seeks to protect birds and bats from wind turbines, arguing the measure would place unnecessary burdens on clean-energy projects.

The Energy Policy Reform and Revitalization Act, a wide-ranging energy bill introduced this month, would create new standards for the placement and construction of turbines and mandate post-construction monitoring of their effects on wildlife.
Mark Rodgers, a spokesman for Cape Wind Associates, the Boston-based firm proposing 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound, said his company already has performed much of the due diligence contemplated in the bill.

But he said he was concerned about a provision that would forbid construction of new turbines until the Department of the Interior drafts the regulations prescribed by the bill.

"Any kind of de facto moratorium on renewable energy at a time we need to take action on global warming and energy independence is blatantly poor public policy," he said.

The legislation, introduced by Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., the chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, calls for development of the regulations within six months of passage of the bill. But wind energy industry officials say they are skeptical that federal regulators will move that quickly.
Supporters of the bill said careful regulation is important with a relatively new industry.

"I think, from our perspective, setting reasonable federal standards for the development of new energy resources makes sense," said Charles Vinick, president and chief executive officer of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, the chief opponent of the Cape Wind proposal.

The bill, which touches on everything from gas and oil drilling to solar power, is scheduled for a committee vote next Wednesday, said Allyson Groff, a spokeswoman for the Committee on Natural Resources.

Rahall said, in a statement, that he is open to changes.

"The provisions contained in H.R. 2337 are not anti-wind, but rather, are aimed at allowing this industry to grow in a manner that is compatible with federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act," Rahall said.

"With this noted, however, these provisions are not locked in stone," he added, "and I will be working with interested members (of Congress) to seek to address their concerns."

The perils of wind turbines made national news when the Altamont Pass Wind Farm, one of the first in the world, killed large numbers of birds after operations began in California in 1981.

The industry has made several adjustments since then, building larger turbines, spaced farther apart, with slower-rotating blades and smooth surfaces not suitable for perching.

A recent study released by the National Research Council found that fewer than 0.003 percent of human-related bird deaths are caused by wind turbines — a fraction of the deaths caused by house cats allowed to roam outside. The council is part of the National Academies, which also comprise the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine. They are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology and health policy advice under a congressional charter.

Gregory Wetstone, senior director of government and public affairs for the American Wind Energy Association, a trade group, said the wind industry takes the issue of bird mortality seriously.

But the wind provisions of the Rahall bill could scare away investment, he said. "This would strangle wind power in the United States," Wetstone said.

# posted by NMG @ 4:06 PM

by Dr. Thomas D. Arkle Jr. in Saipan Tribune

....GE boasts that the span of their rotor blades is larger than the wingspan of a Boeing 747 jumbo jet. The typical 1.5 megawatt assembly is two stories higher than the Statue of Liberty. Wind power stations are not "parks." They are industrial and commercial installations.. Many people are drawn to wild places to avoid such reminders of human industrial might. Many communities depend on such tourists, who will now seek some other, as yet unspoiled, retreat.

On Saipan, a 150 megawatt facility would require 100 towers with a typical 1.5 megawatt generator on top. This would cover an area of nearly 6000 acres. If spaced appropriately and in 4 parallel rows, this would cover a site 5 miles long and 1 mile wide (including required setbacks). It would cost between $700 and $800 MILLION dollars to build over a 6 year time period and at the end, by national statistics (from the U. S. Energy Information Agency) would actually deliver about THREE (3) net megawatts to the community!

Other considerations:

Wind towers require a large amount of energy to operate. Other electricity plants generally use their own power, and the difference between the amount they generate and the amount delivered to the grid is readily determined. Wind plants, however, use electricity from the grid, which is NOT accounted for by any current manufacturers (Vestas, GE, and NEG Micon) in their output figures. Among turbine functions that USE energy:

-Yaw mechanism control (to keep blades perpendicular to wind and untwist cables)
-Blade pitch control (to keep rotors spinning at a regular rate)
-Lights, controllers, communication, sensors, metering, etc
-Heating, cooling or dehumidifying the nacelle
-Oil heater and pump and cooler in gearbox
-Hydraulic brake (to lock blades in high wind)
-Thyristors to regulate connection and disconnection to the grid
-Magnetizing the stator (up to 10 percent of rated capacity used here)

Using the generator as a motor (to help start blade rotation in low wind - the grid magnetized stator must work to help keep the 40 ton blade assembly spinning, along with the gears that increase the blade rpm some 50 times for the generator, not just at cut-in [15 mph], but at least some of the way up to full rated wind speed [30 mph]

It is estimated that EACH turbine may consume as much energy as it produces (under less than perfect wind conditions) in its own operation. Under these conditions, the plant as a whole, which may produce only 25 percent of its rated capacity annually, would be using nearly all of the electricity it produces unless wind speeds were nearly constant at 30-40 mph at all times.

[Click headline for full article.]

# posted by NMG @ 5:22 PM

by Tom Stevenson in 'The Telegraph' UK

"The Government has admitted it is likely to miss its own targets for renewable power generation. Problems with incentives to energy generators, planning curbs and difficulties connecting renewable power to the national grid mean Britain will not be getting 20pc of national energy consumption from renewables by 2020."

"The energy white paper yesterday restated the Government's commitment to promoting wind and tidal power to cut Britain's carbon emissions and increase security of supply."

"But, although renewables' contribution to total electricity generation has more than doubled since 2002, the Government admitted that alternative energy still represents only 4pc of electricity generation."

"Because renewables are more viable for power generation than for transport or heating, meeting the overall energy target means an even higher proportion of electricity must be fuelled by wind, wave and solar power. The current rate of progress makes that unlikely, the Government said."

"Lionel Fretz, chief executive of Carbon Capital Markets, a fund manager, said: "There's no brave new world or big new proposition. It's all pretty uninspiring."

[Click headline for full story.]

# posted by NMG @ 1:21 PM

[from the Cape Cod Times]

Wildlife advocates hoping for a stronger voice in regulations concerning wind energy development on land and sea are expected to testify Wednesday at a hearing before the House Natural Resources Committee in Washington, D.C.

While the Cape Wind proposal isn’t specifically on the agenda, you can bet that folks on both side of the proposal will be interested in the aftermath of the hearing.

At issue will be the proposed “Energy Policy Reform and Revitalization Act of 2007,” filed by U.S. Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va.

Among other things, this legislation would require very specific standards for “siting, construction, monitoring, and adaptive management” of wind farms to “avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts on migratory birds and bats.” The standards would apply to land and offshore wind farms.

The Environmental Protection Administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and now the National Research Council have gone on record saying there is a need for more site-specific information from scientific experts to properly assess impact on wildlife, rather than industry-generated impact reports. Supporters of wind farms in general have described the legislation as an “anti-wind bill” and warn it would place onerous new regulations on wind turbines.

"Scheduled to start at 10 a.m., the hearing will be webcast live on the committee’s Web site at http://resourcescommittee.house.gov.

Cape Cod Times Editioral


If the gigantic Cape Wind project proposed for Nantucket Sound way back in 2001 did nothing else, it has focused attention on how the nation's offshore acreage is used. Porter Hoagland of the Marine Policy Institute at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution sought to clarify the issues for subcommittees of the House Committee on Natural Resources, which recently held a hearing.

An Interior Department official said at the same hearing that "there existed no clear authority within the federal government" to review and oversee projects in federal offshore waters before Congress handed the job to the Mineral Management Services (MMS) in 2005. Since then, MMS has been scrambling to develop regulations for wind, wave and ocean current energy projects — a draft is expected this summer.

It's not an easy job, Dr. Hoagland emphasized. When everything is considered — fishing, aquaculture, shipping, recreation, environmental conservation, not to mention wind speed, distance from electricity transmission — ocean space with the right qualities, "like good cropland..., may be a scarce natural resource."

It sounds odd, to think of the boundless ocean as a scarce resource. But yes, space must be carefully allocated, legal interests established and enforced. To do that, economic value must be attached to both commercial uses (wind farms, fishing, shipping, etc.) and noncommercial uses (recreation, conservation, aesthetics).

Still more complexities await: federal and state fisheries authorities, navigation authorities, environmental authorities and even historic preservation authorities all have a voice in how the ocean is used. In particular, the Coastal Zone Management Act requires that use of federal waters must be consistent with use of adjoining state waters.

Hoagland urged Congress to clarify the economic analysis of competing uses. How do you put a value on a view? How do you put a value on environmental conditions?

Wind energy is subsidized, and a pending bill would extend similar help to tidal and wave energy projects. At the same time, MMS is required to get a "fair return" for the use of federal ocean space. That seems contradictory, but Hoagland points out that power produced by burning coal or oil enjoys "implicit subsidies," such as the free discharge of carbon dioxide and other pollutants, with subsequent public costs to health and the economy. Those costs must be better understood so all power production receives the same subsidy — or none.

As the MMS is developing a foundation for good ocean-use decisions, it must carefully evaluate the Cape Wind project, not only in the context of environmental standards, but also economic ones. Unfortunately, MMS has so far refused to share its economic viability model for the Cape Wind project. If it continues to withhold that information, its review will be less than credible.

# posted by NMG @ 2:30 PM

Eric Jacobson sheds light on a few of the many errors in the pro-Cape Wind editorial by Wendy Williams in Wednesday's Christian Science Monitor. Click on the headline for the full article posted on E. Schwaab's 'Cape Cod Living' blog.
--------------------------------------------------------------

"Response to Science Fiction Writer Wendy Williams"

by Eric Jacobson

I notice that ‘science writer’ Wendy Williams has penned quite a piece in favour of Cape Wind. As a resident of the UK (though a US citizen) I have some practical experience with ‘wind energy’.

Regrettably, Williams’ article is replete with questionable assertions. Indeed, I counted no fewer than three in just one paragraph:

Thus Ms. Williams:

"…[T]he ambitious Massachusetts endeavor would help stabilize New England's aging power grid…"

This is the first time I’ve seen anyone actually assert that wind energy ‘stabilizes’ a grid. If Ms. Williams could explain how a stochastic energy source can ‘stabilize’ anything, I’d be much obliged. Now, it may be that the laws of physics are different in the Cape Cod area—but I confess that I’ve only seen evidence for it in the stories of H.P. Lovecraft. Back in the real world, wind power invariably destabilizes regional and national grids—and the higher the percentage of wind electricity on the grid, the greater the instability. Over here in Europe, I’m afraid the Danish and German electrical engineers would roll their eyes over Ms. Williams assertion; the Germans in particular, after last winter’s blackouts (made all the worse by grid instabilities) might make some fairly pungent remarks as well...

[Continued here.]

By Arthur Hooton,

The Charleston Gazette, 16 May 2007

Excerpt:

Advocates of industrial wind seem to fall into two camps: the dreamers and the schemers. The dreamers are engineers who think they can invent their way out of the inherent flaws of industrial wind by trying to make the turbines ever larger and more efficient, while hoping an industrial-scale electricity storage system will eventually present itself. They’ve had this same dream for over 30 years now. The schemers know it’s not going to happen, but they’re quite willing to lobby for legislation that guarantees a payoff to anyone with money to invest.

Imagine if Congress enacted a law requiring 20 percent of all goods coming into the United States be transported on cargo sailing ships to cut pollution caused by marine diesel engines. The dreamers would build massive, carbon-fiber-hulled ships equipped with titanium masts and Kevlar sails; and the schemers would make sure that investors got tax breaks, credits and subsidies for each ton of cargo hauled. When the wind didn’t blow, diesel powered, ocean-going tugboats would be dispatched to pull becalmed vessels into port with no net change in pollution and with major disruptions in product deliveries. Because the cargo sailing ships didn’t have engines on board, owners would still get tax credits, and consumers could blissfully believe that their goods were being delivered by clean and green energy. That’s the real story behind Big Wind. It’s called consumer fraud and the state of West Virginia does not have to be a party to that fraud.

Arthur Hooton lives in Pendleton County and is a member of Friends of Beautiful Pendleton County, a citizens group that has intervened in the site certificate application process initiated by Liberty Gap Wind Force for construction of an industrial wind facility on Jack Mountain.

# posted by NMG @ 1:14 PM

South Coast Today, My View-

By RAY SURPRENANT, Fairhaven. Mass.


Let's look at why the proposal to build industrial wind turbines should not go ahead. It all centers on the setback issue. In 2004, the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative ignored the University of Massachusetts and had a group of companies involved in the wind industry conduct the feasibility study for Fairhaven.

The area under consideration would not be able to support a wind project using the standard of 1,200 feet set by UMass.

The wind and power companies contracted for the study did not do a noise study, and they recommended to the town that they establish a 400-foot setback for industrial wind turbines, which the town adopted on their advice. They have no expertise on this matter, and they should have had UMass come in before any setbacks were recommended.

UMass does all of the noise studies for the MTC with few exceptions, one being Fairhaven. In my opinion, the only conclusion that one can reach is that if UMass came in and the standard recommendations were adopted, the project would not have been able to go forward. It is unfortunate that up to this point we have listened only to the developer and to the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative. The MTC has strong ties to the multi-billion-dollar wind industry. Only agencies with no ties should be involved in making recommendations.

One of the arguments advanced by some is that these turbines don't give off much noise. The problem with this analysis is: This is the biggest wind project in the history of Massachusetts. Yes, it's even larger than Hull's. The two turbines being proposed are two very large turbines. The larger turbines give off a lot more noise.

To give a comparison, these are Vespar V82, and they are 1.65 megawatts as opposed to the one in Buzzards Bay, which is only 660 kilowatts or .660 megawatts. The two turbines being proposed are almost three times larger than the one in Buzzards Bay. The industrial wind turbine in Buzzards Bay is 248 feet tall, and these are 400 feet tall.

It is well documented by different studies that the location of these turbines in a quiet area and close together will also contribute to the amplification of the noise. Also, the higher the turbine, the further distance that the noise travels. Noise from a turbine travels away from the turbine, not down below the turbine.

We have the making of the perfect storm in regards to the amount of harm that could be inflicted on our residents. A community should never compromise the quality of life of its citizens for a small amount of financial gain.

# posted by NMG @ 6:12 PM

Submitted to Hays Daily May 7, 2007 by J.P. Michaud

By now, my name is probably recognizable to many in town as one of the more outspoken opponents of the wind energy development in Hays. I belong to all three of the groups described by Paul Faber in his editorial: I feel the siting of this project is entirely inappropriate, I have little faith in the ability of wind power to make any meaningful contribution to renewable energy, and I am outraged by the devious and undemocratic process by which this project has been foisted on unsuspecting citizens.

I have researched extensively the dangers of industrial wind energy, helped establish our website, and organized our community presentation on May 2. But all this has not been accomplished without tremendous personal cost; financial, professional, psychological and medical, and I am sure the same can be said for many others in our group.

If you have the read the letters submitted to the Hays Daily by Jeannie Riedel, Sheryl Butler, Jacinta Faber, Tim Davis, Gary Hammersmith (below) and others, you already have some insight into the personal impact this project is having on people’s lives – and its construction hasn’t even begun. So this time I want to speak to the personal impact on my family and on our whole outlook on our future here in Hays...

[Click headline for full story.]

# posted by NMG @ 6:05 PM

Bath, New York – A legal action aimed at stopping a Town of Cohocton wind energy project will be heard Tuesday in state Supreme Court in Steuben County.

Judge Marianne Furfure is scheduled to hear arguments brought by Cohocton Wind Watch. The anti-windmill group contends that the Town of Cohocton did not comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act when it modified its zoning law to allow a project proposed by developer UPC Wind.

# posted by NMG @ 3:17 PM

by James Ferrabee
Institute for Research on Public Policy


From Barton, Vermont, to the German border with Denmark and from the shores of Lake Huron, to the Romney Marches of southern England, wind power advocates are fighting crosswinds from local residents.

In Barton in mid-January, a referendum overwhelmingly rejected the wind power turbines that were planned near this upper Vermont community. Vermont is one of the most scenic US states and it depends heavily on tourists and seasonal residents to keep its economy moving. It is also a state where the voice of environmentalists is heard loud and clear.

In Germany, where one-third of the world's current wind power is generated, doubters have provoked a loud debate. The company that owns the grid that includes nearly half the wind-farms in Germany reported its wind farms generated only 11 percent of their capacity. The company said the winds vary so much the wind farm had to be backed 80 percent by the conventional power grid.

A report sponsored by the German Energy Agency* was also critical of wind power and suggested that carbon dioxide emissions reduction could be achieved more cheaply by other means. The debate inside government circles is quite heated, because the Greens hold 55 seats in Germany's four-party coalition government.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair was quick to install wind power in the southwest of the country when he was first elected, amid much controversy, but in the north and southeast of the country voters are biting back. Residents of Caithness in the north vigorously fought a wind-farm proposal.

And in the wealthy garden county of Kent, south of London, every elected body in the area, including twelve parish councils, two district councils and two county councils, rejected a wind-farm in Romney Marshes.

The main objections of those opposed to wind farms is their unsightliness, the noise they generate, their lack of efficiency and their high cost for seemingly low returns.

The supporters of wind power make the point that citizens are in favour of environmental causes but not when they affect them. This is called the NIMBY - not-in-my-back-yard - syndrome.

"It's no longer NIMBY. For some people it's NOPE - not on the planet earth - it's BANANA, build absolutely nothing anywhere," complained Ontario Energy Minister Dwight Duncan last year. He told CanWest News Services that the NIMBY phenomenon is a "threat to the province's energy security."

But in Ontario some damning criticism has come from agencies concerned about renewable energy resources. One of them is Energy Probe, which conducted a seven- month study of wind production and consumer demand that was published in November 2006.**

It found that so far the capacity factor is 22 percent; periods of very low or no production were particularly common during high demand periods; high but highly variable wind production during low demand periods was common; and in most months the hourly production pattern on average declined during the peak hours of 4 a.m. to 8 a.m.

It concluded: "Energy Probe is concerned that a clean and promising generating technology is burdened with unrealistic forecasts."

There are cancellations or delays on many projects. The plan for the Saugeen Shores of Lake Huron was cancelled. A proposal in the scenic Blue Mountains was abandoned, and there is a 12-month delay in the start-up of a second project north of Orangeville that would add 88 turbines to the 45 already there.

The loudest and longest debate over a wind-farm has been in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, where there is a proposal to build 130 turbines in the scenic Nantucket Sound. The debate has continued for five years and involves, among others, Senator Ted Kennedy and his family, who oppose the project.

The famous Hyannis Port resort where they play is a few miles from the proposed project. Last summer, the residents of Nantucket voted 66 percent against the project.

Even in Quebec's Gaspé Peninsula, where Hydro Quebec is planning one of the largest wind-farms in the world, opposition led by the unions (including the hydro union) has popped up in Rivière-du-Loup, one of the larger cities.

There is no saying how far the protesters will go in Germany, Canada or the US, but they seem to have gathered steam in the last few years. This is one of the few serious blows to the environmental movement in the last decade, caused not by lobby groups or governments, but by the people most affected, those in the nearby towns and cities.

* DENA (Deutche Energie-Argentur, or German Energy Agency), "Integration into the National Grid of Onshore and Offshore Wind Energy Generated in Germany by the Year 2020."2005.

** Tom Adams, "Review of Wind Power Results in Ontario: May to October 2006." Energy Probe, Toronto, November 2006.

James Ferrabee was a senior correspondent for Southam News in Canada and overseas for 39 years. He writes a monthly column for the Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRPP) and can be reached at jferrabee@citenet.net.

Watch "Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity" on a special edition of "20/20" Friday, May 4th at 10 p.m. EDT

The Global Warming Myth?
-- Instead of Panicking Over Climate Change, Learn to Adjust to It

By JOHN STOSSEL
April 20, 2007 —

"The heavy breathing over global warming is enough to terrify anyone.
Last week the Washington Post interviewed a 9-year-old who said the Earth is "just starting to fade away." In 20 years there will be "no oxygen" he said, and he'll be dead. The Post went on to say that "for many children and young adults, global warming is defining their generation." How sad."

"Thirty-six years of consumer reporting have taught me to be skeptical of environmental scares. Much of what the media scares us about turns out to be myths."

[Click headline for full story.]

Excerpt-

"The fundamentalist greens imply if we just conserved energy, and switched from fossil fuels to wind and solar power (they rarely mention nuclear power -- the most practical alternative), we would live in a nonglobal-warming fairyland of happiness. But their proposals are hopelessly impractical."

# posted by NMG @ 2:39 PM

"The House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, Chaired by non-voting, Delegate Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam), held an oversight hearing entitled, Gone with the Wind: Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats."

"Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: Representative Alan Mollohan (D-WV); Dale Hall, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); Conservation Scientist, Bat Conservation International; Director, Birds and Pesticides, American Bird Conservancy; Partner, Meyer Glitzenstein and Crystal; and the Director of Conservation Policy, National Audubon Society."

"Representative Mollohan testified that, “Wind-energy developers have targeted the mountain ridges of my state of West Virginia, and for a number of years I’ve expressed my deep concern about their projects. Among the reasons for my concern are the environmental impacts of these massive projects, including their impacts on the natural beauty of my state, and their impacts on wildlife.” As an example he cited the Mountaineer project that consists of 44 turbines, each 340-feet high 50 feet higher than the tip of the Capitol) and spread out over 4,000 acres of mountain ridges..." [Click headline for full story]

# posted by NMG @ 12:30 PM

By AUDRA PARKER
April 30, 2007

My View, Cape Cod Times

The state's recent determination that Cape Wind's environmental impact report is adequate and the subsequent media coverage of this project "milestone" would have us think that the construction barges that will transport the 130 turbines and the pile drivers that will drill these 18-foot diameter behemoths into the seabed are on their way.

Headlines like "State Approves Cape Wind Plan" and "Cape Wind backers enter 'final lap' " leave the public thinking that Cape Wind is a reality. But these sound bites don't convey the true status of this project or the fact that a federal agency, the Minerals Management Service (MMS), and not the state, has the final word on this project.

In fact, MMS is only at the beginning of its review of Cape Wind. A draft environmental impact statement is still to come with a long road ahead from there to a final decision. MMS just announced that this review is taking longer than expected in an effort to conduct it "in an appropriately deliberate and diligent manner."

By contrast, the state made a rush to judgment on Cape Wind, taking just 30 days to review Cape Wind's massive environmental report, and as little as seven days to study all of the public's comments before reaching a decision.

While Cape Wind complains that its project is being scrutinized more than any other energy plant and that opponents are merely being obstructionist, the federal review process has raised critical issues, especially for a project that is the first of its kind in the nation. After all, it is being proposed in a heavily conflicted and environmentally sensitive location, and was first proposed in a regulatory vacuum.

Questions that weren't even on the table in the beginning of the process are now being addressed. Would the 130 turbines cause radar interference for the many vessels navigating Nantucket Sound? What would be the effect of 40,000 gallons of transformer oil rapidly hitting our beaches in the event of a spill from Cape Wind's transformer substation? Is south of Tuckernuck Island, an area to the southwest of Nantucket, a better location for a wind plant?

On the state side, the recent decision represents but the start of a series of state reviews. Cape Wind needs to get a consistency determination from the Mass. Office of Coastal Zone Management; a Mass. Highways permit; a water quality certificate and either a license or a variance under the Chapter 91 waterways licensing program from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).

This latter program, based on a legal principle that dates back nearly 2000 years, holds that the air, sea and shore belong not to any one person, but rather to the public at large. And Cape Wind, recognizing that getting a variance under this law is a daunting task, has already challenged DEP's initial determination that they require a variance.

At the local level, Cape Wind needs a host of authorizations as well, including approval from the Cape Cod Commission and from both Barnstable's and Yarmouth's conservation commissions.

At this point, Cape Wind has only one conditional permit, for the transmission cable, from the Mass. Energy Facilities Siting Board, and a certificate of adequacy from the state on its environmental report.

So for those wondering how close this project is to becoming a reality, consider the myriad local, state and federal permits that govern this project, and MMS' recent announcement of a longer and more thorough federal process — one that will ultimately determine this project's fate. On top of this gauntlet of reviews, there is still the fact that Cape Wind needs to secure financing for this $1 billion capital investment.

Cape Wind has to obtain each and every one of the 20-some-odd local, state and federal permits that govern this project. Those who recognize that Nantucket Sound is simply the wrong location for such a project because fishermen's livelihoods would be at risk, residents and tourists that travel through Nantucket Sound would be in danger, and the very heart of the Cape and Islands would be irreversibly changed still have many opportunities to make their voices heard.

One permit denial by any one of the reviewing agencies preserves Nantucket Sound as it was intended to be when it was first designated a state ocean sanctuary in 1970. One permit denial also leaves the door open to find an appropriate site for an offshore wind project that would actually help grow this important industry rather than bog it down with a controversial and irresponsibly sited project.

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

# posted by NMG @ 11:36 AM