backtop


Print 97 comment(s) - last by Danger D.. on May 3 at 3:45 PM


Protesters -- Native Americans and environmentalists -- have vowed to sue to try to stop the project after its government approval.   (Source: AP Photo/Julia Cumes)

Cape Wind will provide 468 MW of power at peak capacity. It will be fully operational by 2025 and will look somewhat like this plant -- the Nysted offshore wind farm off the coast of Denmark in the Baltic Sea   (Source: Cape Wind)

  (Source: Boston.com)
Much like with nuclear power environmental advocates find deaf ears in the Obama administration

While no wind resource can be viewed as continuous, off-shore wind tends to be more steady and stronger than land-based wind.  For that reason, off-shore wind is viewed as a very promising form of alternative energy.

It is also controversial.  Property owners hate for their water-front views to be marred by massive, spinning turbines.  Some criticize the wind-farms as too expensive compared to traditional fossil fuel power.  And some environmentalists complain that the farms disrupt shallow-water wildlife.

Despite a concerted effort by environmentalists and the Mashpee Wampanoag and Aquinnah Native American tribes, the federal government has approved the nation's first offshore wind farm.  Much like with the recent nuclear power debate, the pleas of environmental advocates fell on deaf ears with the Obama administration.  Yesterday, the farm was given the go-ahead by U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

At a joint State House news conference with Mass. Governor Deval Patrick, Salazar remarked, "This will be the first of many projects up and down the Atlantic coast.  I am convinced there is a path we can take forward that both honors our responsibility to protect historical and cultural resources and at the same time meets the need to repower our economy with clean energy produced from wind power."

Patrick chimed in, "America needs offshore wind power and with this project, Massachusetts will lead the nation."

The new farm will be built in the Nantucket Sound called Horseshoe Shoal .  It will consist of 130 turbines, each measuring 258-feet tall and producing up to 3.6 megawatts of power.  The total capacity will be approximately 468 megawatts at peak, with an average output of around 170 megawatts.

It is being constructed by Energy Management Inc. (EMI). EMI is a Massachusetts-based energy company.  An independent analyst firm Charles River Associates examined the project as says that it will likely cost $1B USD to $2B USD, but will be able to provide up to $185M USD yearly in power savings.

The government is helping EMI recoup the massive up front investment a bit faster with renewable energy tax credits available to consumers to discount the wind power.  The government will also be offering up $10M USD to help mitigate the impact the plant on local wildlife and on the Native American relics buried in the Shoal.  Still, the project is more independent from taxpayer funding than most.

Mass. Senator John F. Kerry, a former Democratic presidential candidate, cheered the news, stating, "I believe the future of wind power in the Massachusetts and the United States will be stronger knowing that the process was exhaustive, and that it was allowed to work and wind its way through the vetting at all levels with public input.  This is jobs and clean energy for Massachusetts."

The project is expected to provide 1,000 construction jobs over the next few years and create 150 permanent jobs.  It is expected to provide 20 percent of Massachusetts' electricity by 2025 and save over 5 million tons of carbon yearly.

Still the project faces a bit of a fight ahead.  The Native American and environmentalist groups who opposed the project have vowed to ban together and file lawsuits to try to derail the project.

States Audra Parker, president and chief executive of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, "While the Obama Administration today dealt a blow to all of us who care deeply about preserving our most precious natural treasures – this fight is not over.  Litigation remains the option of last resort. However, when the federal government is intent on trampling the rights of Native Americans and the people of Cape Cod, we must act."

Pat Parenteau, who teaches at Vermont Law School, says that the groups are unlikely to be able to obtain an injunction using federal laws like the Endangered Species Act and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.  The best they can do, he believes, is to delay the project's construction by a couple of years.

There are pending off-shore wind projects in Texas and Delaware, as well.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By jillisgreen on 4/29/2010 11:08:09 AM , Rating: -1
What's stupid about wanting to protect nature? How would you feel if some giant creature swooped in and put a giant pole through your home and regularly came out stomping around in it?

Ecosystems are a delicate balance and this project could greatly disrupt them. We should look to protect nature, not destroy it!

I hope the lawsuit succeeds.

~*~*~Jill~*~*~


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Anoxanmore on 4/29/2010 11:28:27 AM , Rating: 4
Jill you aren't very well versed in how much your current power plant has killed wildlife then.

quote:

The second occurred in April 2003, when a Bouchard Company barge carrying oil for the Mirant Canal Generating Plant ran aground spilling 98,000 gallons of oil, which killed 450 birds and shut down 100,000 acres (400 kmĀ²) of shell fishing beds.


A single spill from your NOW current oil power plant, congrats on being dense.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By jillisgreen on 4/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By MrBlastman on 4/29/2010 11:40:26 AM , Rating: 2
Energy efficient light bulbs contain mercury--the same mercury that can seep into the water supply and poison people. Oh wait, I'm sorry, hippies are about population control so poisoning the water supply would be a good thing. Save the animals and down with the people!

Energy Star approved a gas-powered alarm clock. Need I say more?

Cutting back on the use of electronics and power will only slow human progress. The faster we can advance to the next step, the better.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Motamid on 4/29/2010 1:26:38 PM , Rating: 2
Actually when you consider the entire lifespan of a fluorescent light vs. an incandescent bulb, less mercury is released into the environment. Even if the fluorescent bulb is not recycled and all of the mercury inside is released, the amount of energy saved over it's lifetime translates into less mercury released by coal burning plants. Because the majority of our electricity is generated by coal, the energy consumed by an incandescent bulb will result in more mercury being released into the environment than a fluorescent bulb. You can check out the following source:

http://www.iaeel.org/IAEEL/archive/Right_Light_Pro...

Ideally no mercury will be used in the production of efficient lighting which in the near future will probably shift towards solid state lighting such as LEDs and OLEDs. However, mercury will still be released if coal continues to be our main source for electricity generation.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By JediJeb on 4/29/2010 5:59:56 PM , Rating: 2
Also the amount of mercury released into the environment by the florescent bulbs would never raise the levels above the background levels already present. In the lab here we found you have to purchase distilled water when doing trace mercury analysis because the tap water has too much mercury to even be removed by ultra pure water filtration systems. Tap water runs around 1 part per trillion mercury, yet the detection limit for waste waters is set at 0.5 parts per trillion. What we discovered was that tap water is considered safe at those levels, but is considered hazardous by waste water standards, go figure.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Anoxanmore on 4/29/2010 11:49:47 AM , Rating: 3
I see no reason to, when I flip a switch I have power, there are no brownouts here.

If I choose to use more power, I pay for it, that is why I have an electric bill meter.

Time to get off the crazy lists dear, and realize that the way to solve power issues is Nuclear.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By phxfreddy on 4/29/2010 12:06:51 PM , Rating: 2
Jill try to take what I am going to say in an objective non personal way.

When I see thinking like yours I think to myself people are just too lazy to learn anything. Your rainbow and unicorns view is nice but you better be very good looking to get by in life. It would never work for a guy. We generally do not find mates that pay the bills for us.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2010 11:37:30 AM , Rating: 1
OH my god, 450 birds !! The horror !! The absolute atrocity!!!!!!


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Anoxanmore on 4/29/2010 11:48:19 AM , Rating: 2
Actually Reclaimer, the 100,000 acres isn't good since that is most of the Cape fishing area.

Granted the birds were kind of a secondary thing. I'm personally not a fan of eating oil covered fish, are you?

Don't answer that...


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By geddarkstorm on 4/29/2010 12:37:46 PM , Rating: 2
<oblivious> But isn't fish oil good for you...? </oblivious>


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By MrBlastman on 4/29/2010 12:59:20 PM , Rating: 2
Oiled up Salmon can sometimes be quite slippery...


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Anoxanmore on 4/29/2010 3:20:51 PM , Rating: 2
O.o

The "other" pink meat? ;)


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By MrBlastman on 4/29/2010 10:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
:P


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2010 3:38:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm personally not a fan of eating oil covered fish, are you?


Well see a funny thing happens when you dump a small amount of a liquid into trillions of gallons of highly salty ocean water....

Every oil spill we're treated to doom and gloom predictions of it's effect on wildlife. And every time that effect is highly localized and minimal in reality.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Steele on 4/29/2010 5:02:35 PM , Rating: 2
Read about the Exxon Valdez spill. Then talk about "localized and minimal..."

I'm not advocating shutting down oil production or anything of the sort, but let's be honest about it: it can be a dirty business.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2010 5:48:27 PM , Rating: 2
Come now don't cherry pick. Exxon Valdez was a worst case scenario brought to life. You could not have PICKED a worse place to have a spill.

quote:
but let's be honest about it: it can be a dirty business.


Oh absolutely. Most things worth it are. But mother nature can also be, and often is, just as destructive. Volcano's, natural gas eruptions under the ocean, etc etc.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By thurston on 4/29/2010 9:48:41 PM , Rating: 2
How about this one, is it good enough for you?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100429/ts_alt_afp/us...


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By room200 on 4/30/2010 6:44:13 PM , Rating: 2
Drill Baby, Drill!!


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Danger D on 5/3/2010 3:39:13 PM , Rating: 3
There have been seven worse oil spill since Exxon Valdez.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Danger D on 5/3/2010 3:45:03 PM , Rating: 3
I lied. Four, six if you count stuff inland. Plus what's happening now.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001451.html


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By AssBall on 4/30/2010 10:44:32 AM , Rating: 2
Sure the Valdez spill was a disaster, but most of the scientific people there agree that it recovered magnificently compared to the general expectations of the time. More than 11,000 people were involved in cleaning it up, and a hell of alot of useful data and ecological understanding was gathered during the process. An oiled otter picture sure did made alot of money for CNN and Green Peace, though.

It was a regrettable accident that we learned quite a bit about from. But hey, negativity sells better than science, right?


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By room200 on 4/30/2010 6:47:08 PM , Rating: 2
Well, in this current oil spill, we may not have an oily otter. What about photographs of the men who died on this oil rig? Dead people don't recover.


By monkeyman1140 on 5/3/2010 7:08:42 AM , Rating: 2
How many other platforms out there don't have that 2nd safety valve?

Scary thought.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Danger D on 5/3/2010 3:45:40 PM , Rating: 3
It hasn't recovered yet. There's still oil there.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By MrBlastman on 4/29/2010 11:37:41 AM , Rating: 2
Jill, you are turning green and moldy. Perhaps we should just stick you in a bioreactor and turn you into ethanol so we can burn you off. ;)

20% of the states power. 20%! That is significant.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By jimhsu on 4/29/2010 1:25:36 PM , Rating: 2
Butanol is more energy dense and less hygroscopic.

< Head is exploding due to amount of research currently doing now on bioengineering for biofuels.


"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki