Nantucket Sound Wind Farm [Archive] - Fly Fishing Forum

: Nantucket Sound Wind Farm

07-12-2002, 11:08 AM
I am opposed to this project until I can learn more.

I have sent the following questions to the list of representatives that follows.

1. I am opposed to its location. It is in the middle of the sound where it will have a negative impact on marine travel as well as potential unknown environmental risks. Why can’t it be built 5 miles East of Nantucket?

2. What impact is drilling to support 170 windmills into Horseshoe Shoal going to have on the shoal’s structure and marine life?

3. What is the measurable, guaranteed financial benefit to the citizens of Massachusetts if the wind farm were to be constructed?

4. What voice do the taxpayers have in the approval/ rejection of this project?

5. Will the area the cable used to transport the harnessed energy from the wind farm to shore be a “restricted” zone?

I'll post any responses I get.


CONTACTS courtesy of The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound

Federal representatives:

· Senator Edward Kennedy
2400 JFK Building, Boston, MA 02203
Phone: (617) 565 - 3170 Fax: (617) 565-3183

· Senator John Kerry
One Bowdoin Square, Tenth Floor, Boston, MA 02114
Phone: (617) 565-8519 Fax: (617) 248-3870

· Congressman William Delahunt
146 Main Street Hyannis, MA 02601
Phone: (508) 771-0666 Fax: (508) 790-1959

State representatives:

· Senator Robert O'Leary
Room 413 - E, State House, Boston, MA 02133
(617) 722-1570
(617) 722-1271 Fax

· Rep. Demetrius Atsalis
Room 167, State House, Boston, MA 02133
Phone: (617) 722-2692 Fax: (617) 722-2846

· Rep. Thomas George
Room 548, State House, Boston, MA 02133
Phone: (617) 722-2489 Fax: (617) 722-2584

· Senator Therese Murray
Room 511-C, State House, Boston, MA 02133
Phone: (617) 722-1570 Fax: (617) 722-1271

· Rep. Eric Turkington
Room 473-F, State House, Boston, MA 02133
Phone: (617) 722-2210 Fax: (617) 722-2239

Local representatives:

· Barnstable Town Council
Town Hall, 367 Main Street, Hyannis, MA 02601
Phone: (508) 862-4602 Fax: (508) 862-4770

· Mashpee Board of Selectmen
Mashpee Town Hall, 16 Great Neck Rd., Mashpee, MA 02649
Phone: 508-539-1400

· Yarmouth Board of Selectmen
Town Hall, 1146 Route 28, South Yarmouth, MA 02664
(Phone: 508) 398-2231 Fax: (508) 398-2365

Federal agencies

· U.S. Department of the Interior,
Secretary Gale Norton
1849 C. Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20240
(202) 208-3100

· U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services
1849 C. Street NW Room 400, Room 400 Arlington Square
Washington D.C. 20240
Phone: (703) 358-2201

· United States Coast Guard
408 Atlantic Ave #5, Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 223-8600 Fax: (617) 223-8523

State & local agencies

· Mass. Environmental Policy Act
Bob Durand, 251 Causeway Street, 9th Floor, Boston, MA 02114
Phone: (617) 727-9800

· Army Corps Of Engineers
Colonel Brian E. Osterndorf, 696 Virginia Rd., Concord, MA 01742
Phone: (978) 318-8220

· Mass Coastal Zone Management Agency
Thomas Skinner, Director, 251 Causeway Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
Phone: (617) 727-9530

· Massachusetts Audubon Society
Heidi Roddis, Senior Policy Specialist
208 South Great Rd. Lincoln, MA 01773
Phone: (781) 259-9500 x7260 Fax: (781) 259-1089

· Cape Cod Commission
3225 Main St, P.O. Box 226, Barnstable MA 02630
Phone: (508) 362-3828

· Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust
Greg Watson, Program Director
75 North Drive, Westborough, MA 01581-3340
Phone: (508) 870-0312

· Mass Division of Marine Fisheries
Paul Diodati, Director
251 Causeway Street Suite 400, Boston, MA 02114
Phone: (617) 626-1520

· Energy Facility Siting Board
1 South Station, Boston, MA 02110
Phone: 617-305-3500

07-12-2002, 11:43 AM
Roop --

you certainly have done a lot of background work.

Latest reports I've read indicate that the Army Corps of
Engineers have asked the project proposer to report
back on the possibilities of viable on-shore locations...

I'd say the "jury" hasn't gotten all of the facts yet.


07-12-2002, 11:48 AM
I agree that the jury is still out.

In my opinion there are way too many unanswered or vaguely answered questions. Now is the time for the public to speak up and ask their questions and be heard.

07-12-2002, 01:26 PM
Roop- Here's an idea for the location of the wind farm- use one side of the Canal- its Army Corps land anyway- pu tit in their backyard. If they were high enough they wouldn't impact the fishing along th e ditch, the only impact would be during the building phase. Ron

07-12-2002, 05:08 PM
Has this been done anywhere else under similar environmental conditions? I'm not sure but I believe I have heard that windfarms while an intriguing idea have not lived up to the hopes pinned on them.

07-13-2002, 06:47 PM
Not to sound like a broken record... but IMHO put them on Otis AFB.

In any case I strongly feel this is a cause we all need to pull together on. Roop, excellent job of taking the first step towards being heard on the topic. I will call to get your views on how we should attack the problem.

Anyone with good ideas please post to get the brainstorming going...

07-14-2002, 12:08 PM
I think these have been posted in a previous thread but for reference:

The opposition:

The power company:

I take the info on each of these web sites with a HUGE grain of salt. Each group spins any & all info to their benefit...

I believe Otis is sited for another project already.

FYI, the last time I checked, CCA hadn't come out with their positoin on this either.

The back room politics are gonna make this a done deal.

Personally I think this similar to putting a wind farm on Mt. Rushmore or in the middle of Yellowstone, it just doesn't seem right.

07-14-2002, 12:25 PM
The first mention of it was way back in December when Brian Casey asked us to keep him informed about the project if we had heard anything. Soon afterward, in March, others caught wind and we had a few threads on the topic. At some point I and others dug up some links and put them up there, but to your point those are the two main sites.

My reason for mentioning Otis is not necessarily to target Otis but to offer a suggestion as opposed to just a complaint.

Can you be any more specific about your comment on Otis? Or maybe the question is "can you be any more vague?" TIC ;)

In any case, how 'bout we all see what kind of responsibility we can force on the proponents of this project?

07-15-2002, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by juro
My reason for mentioning Otis is not necessarily to target Otis but to offer a suggestion as opposed to just a complaint.

Can you be any more specific about your comment on Otis? Or maybe the question is "can you be any more vague?" TIC ;)

In any case, how 'bout we all see what kind of responsibility we can force on the proponents of this project?

Actually I don't think I could. I know there is some kind of proposal for usage of the area, will dig up what I can.

Another thought that came to me the other night is how are theses generators cooled? Anybody remember the PCB's in the transfomers that were dumped in rivers in Western Mass.?

07-15-2002, 08:40 AM
In regards to Roop's sugestion that Otis is being considered for another project, I believe that some of our local politicians have been working on a proposal for the home base of the newly formed Federal Homeland Security Commission. I also believe that several sites will be under consideration for this requirement and that Otis will be amoung a long list of possible locations.
Additionally, I like Juro's idea of offering alternate sites for the windfarm. Finding solutions is much more constructive that just complaining about it. The Army Corp of Engineers, in their scoping review has required the developer to do the same, to come up with alternate possible locations and to provide pros and cons to each. This seems like the fox guarding the hen house, so if we were to put other ideas out there for them to consider, we may have been some help. Alternative energy is not something we want to turn our noses up at and a resonable location might be had if we keep on trying and offer what we can.

07-15-2002, 08:25 PM
just as some uninterested input. My family let WTXU build a Wind Generation project on approximately 6 sections of one of our West Texas Game ranches. Since these are basically wild game preserves that provide long term income, having anything that was detrimental to the enviornment was a concern. Aside from the fact West Texas has very little rain fall so the construction scaring lasted a few years. The towers are massive, much bigger up close than they look at a distance. Also they rarely actually run. Ours were set up to provide peak demand where the power sales are more profitable. I dont think I ever saw them all turn and rarely did I see them turn at all. We saw little or no effect on our local game. The only draw back to the entire project was that ENRON had the contract for distribution. After their little accounting problem the entire contract had to be renegotiated. All in all it was a pretty good deal for all the parties involved.

Considering that my family has pretty much made its way in the oil business and that I have a nuclear plant in my back yard, wind generation offers the least overall environmental impact to all those concerned. I know that most of the time people are ok with energy projects as long as they are "not in my back yard". But the one I have in "my own back yard" really worked out fairly well.

I hope you guys get it all worked out to your benefit. I'd hate to see any harm come to a fishery due to building something that has marginal economic payback.


07-16-2002, 05:20 AM
John -

It's great that you had an experience with them that was positive. But with due respect, how would you feel if they wanted to put the windmills in the White River? That's not too far off from what they are saying here. A site on a panhandle plain would be just fine, if we only had one in crowded taxaxhusetts to offer.

I could also point out that if they don't run, what was the purpose? Last thing we need out here is to do the project for something that is not used. That's worse than the big dig, at least we might someday drive on that fiasco.

The problem with the project is what it is - an invasion into an important ecosystem and navigational region by the interests of the few at the risk of the interests of the many. It's a bizarre location and reminds me of the thinking that went into the dams built for "clean energy" on the Columbia River.

Windmill power sounds interesting and promising for the future's clean power. Windmills in the middle of Nantucket Sound sounds ludicrous and is driven by the type of wanton decision making that has gotten us into the mess we're in today with all other such "brilliant" energy schemes.


07-16-2002, 05:52 AM

Plain and simple I wouldn't want a project on the White River. I can't blame you guys for not wanting one there either. But, my issue with a project wouldn't be due to the environmental impact. It would be due to the fact that they are damn ugly. It's hard to miss 100 windmills that are as tall as 15 story buildings. Where they built our project there is not another person for 20 miles.

I don't blame you guys for not wanting one of these close to your fishery. But, you'll have to try political pressure or your ideas on alternative sites, because they'll most likely pass their environmental impact study.


07-16-2002, 06:22 AM
Yes, you make a valid point. I hope my concern over the matter didn't come across wrong, I want to save any angst to fuel positive actions as you suggest.

07-16-2002, 07:17 AM
1. Case & John make good points re: we can't turn away to alternative sources of power. I don't think anyone leaning towards the opposition of this project is against an environmentally clean power source.

2. There is one quantifiable environmental impact that I know of.

Does anyone have one of those funky cell phone towers in their town? The ones shaped like a church steeple, a flagpole, some have been shaped like trees from what I remember. In my town we have a HUGE flag pole, with a reqular size flag. In scale it looks like someone shrunk the flag.

These were all done due to the impact on the environment from a visual perspective that cell phone towers would have on the quaint little villages they were going into.

I don't think this is a viable reason to oppose the windmills, just food for thought.

I'm trying to find the Army Corp of Engineers reports.


John Desjardins
07-16-2002, 08:56 AM
On the visual appearance of windmills I have 1 comment. Last week I was out in Colorado on business (no fishing GRRRR). On the Wyoming- Colorado border south of Cheyene a wind mill farm with ~ 50-60 wind mills sprouts out of the plains. The sight of this farm off in the distance made me think I was in teletubby land. I can only imagine what it would look like out in the sound.

07-16-2002, 10:03 AM
My company lost hundreds of millions insuring those things in the 1980s out west. We are out of those risks for sure ! Not seen any in the mid west and hope I never do. Good luck would oppose them though if they were coming into my neighborhoods.

07-16-2002, 10:31 AM
I am all for alternative power, but visual landscape is very important as well. (I saw a great sticker on a Toyota Prius the other day..."Eat My Voltage" :D)I would be interested to read the potential effects of the drilling/vibrations, etc.

On a side effecient are these things anyways? I thought that wind power had not yet made it yet. That was a few years ago though, and I had not heard of anything until this point. Is it really worth the effort (cost and environmental impact) to put these things up?


07-16-2002, 10:36 AM
I'd be willing to bet that if we converted all light bulbs on Cape Cod to energy saving bulb technology we could save more energy than the mills could generate.

Where is the energy destined for? I wonder if it's for use off-cape. If so, locations off cape should be fair game.

07-16-2002, 11:59 AM

I am sitting here with a pilot friend of mine that flies into Martha's Vinyard and Nantucket on a regular basis. He was telling me about the water visibility being basically unlimited, the fishing fantastic, and the quality of the homes being like nothing else in the country. When I told him about the Generation Project his comment was "That is totally insane!!!". Am I looking at this correctly? These are double the size of the ones we have and at least twice as ugly. This has to be a joke.............right? Maybe they sould build one in Yellowstone, or the Grand Canyon next.

Two things that I know of are infinite.........The universe........and the total depth of human stupidity........although, I'm not positive about the universe.


07-16-2002, 01:13 PM
Well, Alright. Now were cooking! Yes, LUDICROUS is what the location of this project means to me. Also, Don't forget, we live in Massachusetts, and the only ones who will benefit from this disaster will be those who are working on them, building, maintaining and running them. And maybe the developers. I can assure you that those of us who will be affected the most by the impact of the construction, the effects on the marine enviroment, the obstructions to navigation(I am positive that the area surrounding the towers will be off limits to boaters) both by sea and air, and the visual pollution (Heh! it's only Cape Cod were talkin about here) will not receive a dimes worth of value due to this project. Also, don't forget that the developer is attempting to squirm out of any possible bonds which would pay for the demolition in the mostlikely event that the project fails. IMHO. So who do you think will end up paying for that?
This thread has been up only a short time and @ 220 readers so far, it's obvious that we and many others are very concerned about this proposal. Let's keep the issue going, alot of good info flows and we all learn from the dialog.:)

07-16-2002, 03:27 PM

Here's Cape Wind Associates form letter to send to your elected official.

I'm posting this as the best way to represent the position the developers of this project.

"I support the 420 megawatt Cape Wind renewable energy project.

The Cape Wind proposal for Horseshoe Shoal on Nantucket Sound could supply much of the electricity needs of Cape Cod and the Islands, and would be a significant step in the region toward reliance on cleaner, safer and local sources of energy.

Massachusetts is paying a high price for our nation's reliance on burning coal and oil to make electricity. We are at the end of our nation's tailpipe for power plant pollution. We currently have no choice but to breathe this pollution which has severe and sustained effects on human health. The American Lung Association has compiled scientific studies demonstrating overwhelming evidence that pollution from fossil fuel burning is directly harming the health of babies and children by causing increased incidences of infant mortality, asthma attacks and bronchitis.

Our reliance on fossil fuels for electricity is also accelerating global warming. The United States Environmental Protection Agency reports that the consequences of global warming to Cape Cod will be enormous--rising sea levels, and more frequent violent storms threatening waterfront properties, beaches, marine and wildlife habitats.

This Cape Wind proposal is a step in the right direction. The only way we can clean up our air and reduce the threat of rising sea levels is if people across the country tap into their own natural, non-polluting energy resources.

Adding this wind energy will also reduce electricity prices to Massachusetts energy consumers. MASSPIRG, a long-time advocate for clean energy and consumer rights, enthusiastically supports the Cape Wind project for both its environmental benefits and its projected consumer savings.

Horseshoe Shoal is an ideal location for this project as it will successfully coexist with fishing and boating.

I urge your support of this clean energy project to help ensure a healthier and safer future."

Tod D
07-16-2002, 08:01 PM
Boy, this is a tough one. First blush, how can one be against harnessing a benign, renewable energy source? The more I think about it though, the more conflicted I become. Random thoughts on prior comments, etc;

- Environmental impact study - I cannot imagine it won't pass, given the fact that oil derricks dot the gulf of mexico, north sea, etc. etc. I find it hard to believe wimdmills - regardless of how high, big etc. they are - are more environmentally damaging than an oil derrick.

- Economic impact/actual energy generation - Given that Wind Farm Assoc. isn't in the energy distribution business (as best I can tell), seems like one of the "traditional" utilities needs to weigh in on the viability, perhaps not of generation, but distribution, quantity, etc. On the generation side, seems like the state or fed govt need to step in as well to call for some independent verification.

- Economic viability of WFA - Substantial project, substantial investment; to echo Brian's comments above, seems like WFA needs a bit more skin in the game - not to mention a healthy once-over on their financial viability & project projections. Seems like we need to find out who we're dancing with on this one...

- Save our sound 'marketing' - maybe it's me being cynical, but the group does itself no favors by having an online store w/ stylish shirts, etc. Realize they have to raise money, but it seems their line of corporate casual clothing plays right into the hands of Wind Farm Assoc.: "our opponents are a brie-eating, SUV-driving upper class that don't want to ruin "their" view from multi-million dollar vacation homes, while we're trying to deliver inexpensive, environmentally-clean energy to the masses..."

- Location/Aesthetics - Absent some environmental bombshell, or financial hurdles, seems like the biggest area of contention is this: the location is ill-conceived. I'd guess that onshore locations are few and far between. MA real estate isn't exactly a bargain. So, why not move it farther out as many of suggested? Roop - are you talking about that BIG flag pole near the Rt 14/53 intersection? That sucker's huge!

Ultimately, I think it's going to come down to the financial viability of the project/of WFA and/or some major political mojo (i.e. a spoiled view from a certain political family's compound in Hyannisport). to move it somewhere else.

Sorry for the ramble. That's what I get when I get up at 3 am over the weekend to fish w/ Roop & Fred, then follow it up w/ respective 16 and 13 hour work days.... Carry on.

07-17-2002, 05:36 AM
Not a ramble Tod - a good practical real world analysis and all excellent points.

I'm just trying to stir the pot and get people to think and react instead of being sheep who let whatever some company with enough political pull take a chunk of our natural resources for their personal gain and leave us with the bill.

My personal position right now of being anti-windmill could be turned around with real world answers, something I don't think we'll see from either side.

I like the qoute about the opponents being class driven as it would spoil the view from their homes. Nothing like roiling the perceived "underclass" to fight a rich man's fight.

Maybe a little levity is due...

Couldn't make it work with Kum bai yah (sp?) :hehe:

I like the taste of brie
I own an SUV
But I don't have a DVD
Can I still be a yuppy?

My mansions a shack
When it comes to finances I'm a hack
Can I still be a yuppy?

I like open sky and the sea
Can't we just let them be?
Does that make me a yuppy?


I hope everyone keeps the thoguhts & ideas coming!

As the Penguin says, sleep is for the dead, time to wake the kids.

07-17-2002, 06:27 AM
I definitely oppose the project and I used to be an overzealous alternative energy supporter.

I have some contacts at the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) in Golden, CO. I used to work there. I worked in their photovoltaics division but the windmill dudes worked down the hall. I will see if I can drum up some more info on wind power.

Check out the NREL site though because it does have some good info:

NREL is a DOE supported facility so prepare for their bias. Still, the place is composed of true scientists with strong ethical beliefs. The data that they present should be unbiased.

Off to work...


07-18-2002, 02:11 AM
I have enjoyed wind and solar power over the years and think this project could be

beneficial to almost everyone. While it is adding to the navigational hazards certainly

during the fog and at night. I think it would actually increase the number of fish that are

holding on the shoal due to the structures. If it were to move farther east 5 miles, the

transmission losses are that much greater, cables are longer which is bad for the draggers,

people anchoring etc...

I don't think it would take all that long to recover the costs based on the wind data I've

seen. I can't believe it would cost that much to erect a bunch of them. If everyone invested

and had a share of the output, they could get their percentage of return. It could pay for

their electricity for them depending on their use and ROI, or if they are not there they

would receive a check each month from their share of the power sold at market rate on the

grid. Although it's supplemental power, it can be very economical over the long haul.

Although I don't have historical wind data for that exact location on Horseshoe shoals using

the BUZM3 platform data in Buzzards bay will give us an idea of what we can expect for wind

speeds. Here's a URL for reference showing mean wind speeds.

Nobody I know is fond of the cell phone towers in town, But we all enjoy the convience of

being able to call from just about anywhere. I would rather see solar and wind farms than a

nuclear plant in my back yard. I'm not too fond of the coal burning plants either since few seem to have scrubbers on them to stop the tons of sulfur dioxide emissions despite being sued by the EPA, or the Power companies bilking the Massachusetts taxpayers of millions for them with proposition 4.

Chernobyl is a good reminder of just how dangerous nuclear power is. And with all the hype

over terrorism it became clear that for many years none of the safe guards for the local

population from radiation were available in local hospitals.

Wind and solar won't solve all our needs but it's clean and as close to free as it comes.


07-18-2002, 06:13 AM
Once again, the discussion in not whether wind power is clean - and no solar element exists in the entire proposal. Let's stick to the topic so as to stay focused on finding a solution or a plan of attack. The core of the issue is placement of hundreds of acres of high-cost, high-maintenance, ecologically disruptive, technologically unproven Quixotic (as in Don Quixote) devices in the middle of a major offshore ocean habitat.

The visual stimulus of acres of whipping blades over the water, the underwater vibration pollution, years of diffucult and costly construction, and constant maintenance of such a pipedream project will undoubtedly be of huge circumstance to the shoal habitat. My money says fish will not go near it.

Every chest-beating human acheivement of this sort has been of catastrophic circumstance to nature since day one. Who are we kidding?

Timber - the renewable resource? We have never replaced even so much as ONE old growth tree. An old growth tree in the PNW averages 700-1000 years of age and we have harvested 93% of them already.

Hydro Dams - clean energy? In less than a century we have eliminated 87% of the indigenous salmonids of the Columbia River system with clean energy, many of these dams are obsolete and are doing nothing but killing fish for us now.

Will we learn from their mistakes?

I am no proponent of fossil fuels over clean energy sources, believe me - but an oil derrick only causes harm when it leaks. It is constructed on shore, anchored at sea, movable, and is a single non-moving, non-vibrating, low maintenance structure with what I would guess to be approx. the total square area of one windmill or less.

This is not about the money, at least not for consumers. Do you really think this one project is going to have an impact on consumer energy rates? If so you are bigger dreamers than the proponents of this project! This is about money alright, for the group who wants to build it and no one else. The benefit of the few impacting the many.

Before we get starry eyed over the promises of a few pennies per rate month, study the benefit verses impact of dams on the great rivers of the pacific northwest. People made the exact same rationalizations about clean power there too.

If we want to save money, use less and put the windmills on hard ground. That will probably cut the cost of the project in half and will not affect the return. Very simple ROI - what are these people thinking?

If we can't find places on our own turf, we shouldn't go screwing up a perfectly good offshore habitat. We have no clue what importance that area has to the migratory habits, reproductive cycles, etc - and once the damage is done it will be a fiasco dealing with it out there.

It will do infinitely more harm than good. Put windmills on hard ground, let the sea be the sea. We humans have already over-stepped our bounds in nature, less is more. It's simply a bad idea.



07-18-2002, 07:21 AM
My intention in starting this thread was to get people to think about this issue, get them to look into the impact this would have on the area and voice their thoughts.

I'm currently opposed to the project since I have seen nothing that shows the benefit of the project would outweigh any type of socio-environmental impact.

I think Greg made some good points regarding wind vs. nuclear or coal fired energy sources. I would love to see this work in a less invasive area.

I understand Juro's passion but lets keep to the facts which in this case are all subjective.

As I recall, the proponents of this project are expecting it to produce up to 50% of the electricity needed on the Cape. So to have the Cape run 100% off wind power, we would need twice as many?

Personally I think the the length of time for the total project costs to be offset by energy savings is going to take a long time.

I hope people keep the pro & cons thoughts & ideas coming.

07-18-2002, 08:44 AM
Likewise, I understand your intent in starting this thread but as with all threads they will go where they will and there is value in the randomness as well. My pre-commute (rushed) post was an attempt to combine some real facts (e.g. old growth trees and salmonid decline) with "passion" (if not passion, then why do we care?).

To stick only to the facts, we'd have to first stop comparing wind and solar and hydro for that matter to coal and nuclear - what is being proposed here IS a wind proposal, no one is contesting that.

The problem is the LOCATION, which was my first point in the earlier post. Would the wind farm be more or less "clean" on dry land? I would say significantly more clean when you factor noise and vibration pollution (to the ecosystem) and impact of heightened maintenance due to salt water corrosion into the discussion.

The grim reality is that there are no facts... it's all conjecture. We simply do not and can not know what the impact will be on Horseshoe Shoals until it's too late to do anything about it. As in the hydro dam case, the catastrophic impacts will be discovered well after the fact.

Back to facts:

What exactly will be the impact on rates on the cape, in terms of cents per kilowatt hour?

Will this lead to the measurable reduction of fossil fuels or the elimination of power sources used today by the Cape? Will they shut down the plant on the canal?

How will this be offset by taxpayer / ratepayer dollars?

What percentage of reduced consumption can be achieved thru smarter energy use on the cape?

How does this smarter usage reduction compare to the cost/returns of the wind farm?

What is the impact on the ecosystem on this shoal?

I am happy to investigate and assess facts. Personally, I don't think anyone has facts here, only passion. If you got 'em post 'em.


John Desjardins
07-18-2002, 08:51 AM
One aspect of this project I'm curious about is what legal mechanism is the developer using to usurp the public ownership of the seabed for a privately financed and owned project?

Other questions I have are:

Is the farm to be operated as a peaking plant or generate for the base line load? If it is operated as a peaking plant it will result in a minimal reduction in the burning of fossil fuels.

The impact of hurricanes upon it?

From what I've read this plant is planned to produce 420 Mw of power at full operation. Dotted throughout the commonwealth are a number of capped landfills with decomposing matter generating and releasing methane gas into the atmosphere. What is the viability of using the methane gas to generate power?

07-18-2002, 10:35 AM
O.K., trying to stay focused on facts:


The general case is that whenever an attempt is made to increase capacity / reduce demand (in this case power), demand eventually rises to the point where it negates the corrective measure. Net result - the same original problem only somewhat bigger! You can prove this mathematically using System Dynamics modelling tools and techniques.

As to the benefits for Cape residents ( presumably the same Brie Eating, SUV-driving people?) - do they they really need cheaper electricity?

Is the Cape currently self sufficient and funded for power generation? If not, how does the assumed reduction in power generation cost find it's way back to Cape residents? The power that comes out of the socket is presumably fungible and the "Produce of Several Generators"?


Just looking at one of the financial rags, the US power industry is completely screwed up right now thanks to the current patchwork of regulated / de-regulated states, California's energy crisis, Enron etc. Net demand is down - about one third of the increased capacity planned back in 2000 has been cancelled - nobody wants to finance a new power plant unless they can see $$$.

Environmental impact:

The current idea seems to be introduce a purportedly environmentally friendly solution in a manner which is environmentally questionable.

I suspect that Juro is right and this is about $ commercial interests who have managed to co-opt the environmental lobby's support.

07-18-2002, 09:02 PM
If the wind farm had to be located off the cape, perhaps Nomans land could be made available for such a project. Doesn't seem like there are many options that would be considered a good choice by all.


02-11-2003, 09:02 AM
Anyone have the latest scoop?

02-11-2003, 06:33 PM
Greg, Nomans is a great idea, only problem is that someone would have to clean up all the bombs (dead and alive) which means someone would actually have to invest money in the property, now there's a novel idea!:devil:

02-11-2003, 10:55 PM
There was an ill conceived tower project in my town. No one had the foresight to require a bond for removal of the tower if it was not profitable. It sits and rusts. Maybe when faced with proper bonding requirements the project may be considered nonprofitable to the investors.