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 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.


“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith














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