If you've no account register here first time
User Name :
User Email :
Password :

Login Now

Federal Advisory Council Wants to Block Cape Cod Offshore Wind Farm

windfarmoffshoreThe Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is asking the U.S. Interior Department to block the $1-billion wind project off Cape Cod in Massachusetts because it would impact 34 historic properties including those of local Indian tribes, reports Reuters.

Cape Wind Associates has been battling local businesses, politicians and environmentalists for several years to build its proposed 130 wind tower farm. The latest update in February indicated that the U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar hoped to reach an agreement by the end of April over the long-delayed Cape Wind power project.

Reuters reports that Interior Secretary Salazar had asked the panel for advice but does not have to follow its recommendations, which came two days after Cape Wind selected Siemens AG to supply the turbines for the project.

The Siemens announcements resulted in additional problems for the developer. Opponents say that the taxpayer-subsidized project should select a U.S. company to supply the turbines if the project is approved, reports The Boston Herald. They estimate that taxpayers will pay about one-third of the estimated $1.6 billion total cost to build the project.

In response to the Advisory Council’s findings, Cape Wind stated in a press release that although it disagreed with the Advisory Council, it is “pleased that the Interior Secretary has a complete record to make a final decision on the project.”

The company also stated: “The bulk of the record was contained in a very favorable Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) issued by the Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the Department of Interior last year that looked at every benefit and impact of the project. The FEIS found Horseshoe Shoal to be the optimal site for this project.”

Merging Industrial Air and Water Pollution Solutions Provides Better Results, Lower Cost
Sponsored By: Anguil Environmental Systems

Environmental Leader Product & Project Awards 2018
Sponsored By: Environmental Leader

Is Energy-From-Waste Worse Than Coal?
Sponsored By: Covanta Environmental Solutions

How the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) Can Improve Your Business Operations
Sponsored By: Digital Lumens


34 thoughts on “Federal Advisory Council Wants to Block Cape Cod Offshore Wind Farm

  1. 100% correct! We don’t want any wind turbines out there because we all know how much better those extremely pretty and environmentally friendly oil drilling rigs would be instead!


  3. Cape Wind has branded itself as “green.” That’s been a problem all along. Think DE-constructing eons of natural ecosystem in order to plant 130 440-ft. tall wind turbines and power plants equipped with helicopter pads. Then there are the tons of diesel fuel and hydraulic fluids out there, too, in the breadbasket of Nantucket Sound. That’s just for starters. Their treatment of First Nations people has also earned them spots on human rights watch lists.

  4. Cape Wind will reduce 370 tons per year of SO2 emission that cause acid rain by displacing dirty and dangerous electricity. Acid rain etches sandstones to oblivion and in the presence of acidity fungi grow metabolizing calcium out of marble and limestone turning them to white dust. While the visual impact of wind turbines is reversible destruction of historic heritage from acid rain is for ever. The Trust for Historic Preservation is not to be trusted and should be renamed The “Untrust for Historic Preservation”.

    They should be ashamed.

  5. My understanding is diesel at the service platform for generators. Outside the turbines, what about all of the diesel for heavy construction vehicles and equipment, too?

  6. Eli, we would all be better off to not wait on wind farms then, but to install home/business/building generators now. Also cutting down on electrical consumption in general. We have to stop feeding the pig!

  7. “The more clearly we can focus our attention on the wonders and realities about us, the less taste we shall have for destruction.”
    ~~~~ Rachel Carson ~~~~

  8. As the Gulf Oil Tragedy worsens, two things occur to me. First is the ineptitude of humans to control outcomes of their mechanical invasions upon Mother Earth. Second is the vulnerability of waters to this destructive folly. In a genuine lack of wisdom, the US has once again decided to go beyond where it should go – this time by Salazar approving Cape Wind. He just slated Nantucket Sound’s fragile ecosystem for an electrical service platform with a helicopter pad, fuel, transformer oil, greases, and industrial lubricants – tens of thousands of gallons of them about 4 miles offshore in those waters. With an increase in predicted severe weather events already taking place, prospects of nor’easters on steroids just doesn’t bode well for offshore wind farms in their path. Has Mr. Salazar and Minerals Management just made a budgetary decision on how to kill the waters? Why use premium crude oil when tens of thousands of gallons of alternative industrial fluids will work just as well? People, offshore wind farms are not benign pinwheels. They are industrial power plants that can pollute just as much as any man-made beast. Our life-giving waters should not be squandered like this.

  9. Jonathan, what ludicrous arguments.

    Wind farms do not “pollute just as much as any man-made beast”. The wind is free – free of cost, free of pollutant waste products when producing energy, and free of the GHG emitted to drill for, extract, transport, and refine crude oil or other fossil fuels. Wind farms are some of the most environmentally benign inventions ever achieved. They truly are about as close to benign pinwheels as can be imagined.

    Are you concerned about the “electrical service platform with a helicopter pad, fuel, transformer oil, greases, and industrial lubricants – tens of thousands of gallons of them”? LOL. And what about the MILLIONS of gallons of crude oil being spilled in the ongoing BP disaster? Tens of thousands of gallons – even if they all spilled at once (an unlikely scenario) – would hardly be felt in Nantucket sound, which no doubt contains untold billions of gallons of seawater. And the ecosystem of the sound is no more fragile than those off the Louisiana coast. Quit playing the NIMBY game.

    Robbyn, your reasoning is no better.

    You have also bought into the same false argument about lubricants and hydraulic fluids. The amount of those that will be present in the wind farm is ridiculously small in comparison to what it would take to truly threaten the ecosystem.

    And “DE-constructing eons of natural ecosystem” is the last thing that will result from the wind farm. To the contrary, we will be PRESERVING ecosystems all over the world by our continued push for forms of green energy and a limitation on GHG emissions. The same goes for you: quit playing the NIMBY game.

  10. FYI — TOXIC FLUIDS SPILL POTENTIAL OF OFFSHORE WIND FARMS, based on proposed Cape Wind at Nantucket Sound:

    ELECTRICAL SERVICE PLATFORM (to generate electricity) houses at least 40,000 gallons of Napthenic mineral oil, enough motor oil and deisel oil for 2 diesel engines, at least 1,000 gallons of fuel oil for emergency generation fuel supply, about 60 gallons of glycol, and 355 gallons of sulfuric acid – AT LEAST 41,415 GALLONS

    EACH OF 130 WIND TURBINE GENERATORS will hold at least 214 gallons of bearing lubrication, gear lubrication, cooling & lubrication, brake fluid, hydraulic fluid, transmission fluid, and heat dissipation fluids – AT LEAST 27,820 GALLONS FOR TURBINES



    source: Cape Wind Energy Project Final EIS, Jan. 2009 — US Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service

  11. Doug — DUH !!! These benign windmills will keep oil companies in business, then spill it into Nantucket Sound on top of whatever other “benign” toxics that people like you make money from. Only a flesh-and-bone troll (think Ian Bowles or Mark Rodgers or Deval Patrick) would write something like “Tens of thousands of gallons – even if they all spilled at once (an unlikely scenario) – would hardly be felt in Nantucket sound,” or “the ecosystem of the sound is no more fragile than those off the Louisiana coast.” What the === is wrong with you? All ecosystems are fragile. Can you say E-C-O-C-I-D-E ? I hope so, because with your sharp mind, it’s coming to your backyard real soon.

  12. Jonathan,

    If you could, just for a moment, allow your brain to think as opposed to simply allowing your emotions to control your mouth:

    Windmills do not keep oil companies in business. Windmills didn’t even exist in any significant numbers until just a few years ago. How then did oil companies manage to exist, and even to grow, in their absence?

    I am not in the windmill business, and I make no money from chemical products at all – be they benign, toxic, or anything else.

    I stand by my statement that spilling some tens of thousands of gallons of petrochemicals into any sufficiently large body of water is unlikely to have huge environmental impacts. The oil spills you hear about that do cause huge damages are themselves huge – usually millions, to tens of millions, of gallons. That’s thousands of times larger than the amount of petrochemicals you are so worried about. Of course we would try to clean it up if there was a spill of that magnitude; but the ecosystem would easily survive it.

    And I repeat my statement that spilling all those chemicals at once is a very unlikely scenario. These platforms are not at all like oil drilling and extracting platforms. They are not tapping into any vast underground pools of oil. They are not piping it to the surface. They are not transferring it to large ships, nor are they pumping it to shore. They merely hold some petrochemicals in relatively small tanks onboard their own platforms; for their own use on those very same platforms. Get real.

  13. Another point of comparison:

    The latest governmental estimate of the amount of oil leaking from the gulf BP disaster is 5,000 barrels of oil per day. Per day – for how many days straight, so far?

    Compare that to Jonathan’s estimate of a TOTAL of 662 barrels stored in the ENTIRE Cape Wind project. Stored on separate platforms, all of which would have to catastrophically fail at once for the entire amount to be spilled simultaneously.

    Jonathan’s concerns are entirely misplaced.

  14. Another point of comparison: The waters are no place to store toxic chemicals and fuel. Unless, of course, you’re with the MMS and permit any business that coughs up the cash. Cape Wind is one piece of gridwork planned for the Outer Continental Shelf. Together they’re easily into millions of barrels. A good hurricane or nor’easter will take them down — probably at once. Ever seen the North Atlantic on steroids?

  15. So, Jonathan, you believe that “Cape Wind is one piece of gridwork planned for the Outer Continental Shelf. Together they’re easily into millions of barrels”? OK – let’s examine what that might mean. Even though I entirely disagree with your assessment that the total would be “easily into millions of barrels”. Ummmmmm – the outer continental shelf is thousands of miles long. Meaning that, even if significant amounts of chemicals and fuels were to spill simultaneously from thousands of physically separate platforms – themselves spaced out over those same thousands of miles – then the resulting spill would be diluted by mind-boggingly huge amounts of seawater. The concentration of chemicals in any one part of the ocean, or the shoreline, would not be very high. Would such a scenario be good? Of course not. But it wouldn’t be such a huge disaster either. Remember, wind farm platforms are not at all like oil drilling and extracting platforms. Wind platforms merely store small amounts of fuel and lubricants on-board. They don’t extract vast amounts from underwater reservoirs, they don’t transfer it to ships or to shore, etc., etc.
    And, Jonathan, really – “A good hurricane or nor’easter will take them down — probably at once”. Do you honestly believe that? LOL. Again, since you’re into points of comparison, let’s compare them to oil platforms. Many oil platforms exist in the North Sea, for example – where the storms are more frequent, and usually worse, than most “nor’easters”. And they all survive every such storm just fine. They don’t topple over or get washed away. And for your information, windmills are designed so that their blades are “feathered” during large storm events. That action prevents them from spinning out of control, or from being destroyed by high winds.

  16. Incidentally, Holland operates at least one offshore wind farm in the North Sea. So far, there have been no disasters of any sort associated with operating that wind farm in such a famously stormy part of the worlds oceans …….

  17. **** SalaCZAR OF ECOCIDE HOPES WIND WILL COVER HIS OILY TRACKS — Oil Spill Highlights Need For New Secretary of the Interior ****

    GULF OIL TRAGEDY & CAPE WIND HAVE A LOT IN COMMON — KENNETH SALAZAR’s signature AND THE CORRUPT MMS. Remember, all candidates, that we constituents are judging YOU by the company you keep. Are you sure you want to risk pictures with the salaCZAR OF ECOCIDE? He’s putting a very dark stain on renewable energy, and it will be right next to your name.

  18. Doug, my point stands. The waters are no place for toxic chemicals and oils. Insofar as the extreme weather events happen, unfortunately we all may just have to see what happens to offshore wind farms. They will not survive. At the rate people like you reject the sanctity and necessity of water, neither will we.

  19. If, as some of you appear to be, dead set against the wind farm in Nantucket Sound – how else do you propose to generate power in the near future? Peak oil is upon us!

  20. Jonathan, better engineers than you believe otherwise when it comes to the survival of offshore wind farms. And inherently skeptical, risk-averse bankers and businesspeople continue to finance their construction and to invest in their ownership. None of these people is interested in working on, or investing in, an enterprise which is bound to fail.

    There will be virtually no contamination of water associated with this or any other offshore wind farm. Your sanctified waters will remain relatively safe – especially in comparison to the way they regularly get despoiled by the current practices of drilling, extraction, and transport of huge amounts of fossil fuels – our only available substitute at present.

    I fully expect to survive long into the future, along with much of the human race. And eventually, I’ll enjoy knowing that the power we need is being produced cleanly and renewably, with minimal negative impacts on the environment. And some of that renewable generation mix will include offshore wind farms.

  21. Doug, offshore wind generators don’t fuel your car, plane, or boat. They’re used to produce electricity. So until the world is no longer using gas-powered engines, well …

    Just an FYI: your “better engineers” than me at Siemens can’t even get their bearings. By ISO standards, manufacturers are responsible for the quality of parts supplied by vendors. This is a very bad sign that the Cape Wind turbine manufacturer does not have its act together. Yet, the turbine is advertised as the “offshore workhorse.” Well, at least they have the spin down pat.

    Siemens doesn’t even have the necessary equipment to work on fixing the turbines and has to find a boat for maintenance. That’s an ominous sign in regard to emergency preparedness.


    It’s obvious that offshore wind farms are being built without adequate R&D — and without proper maintenance equipment ready for emergencies. This puts everyone, including investors, at risk for numerous reasons. It also puts the waters around them at risk.

    Synthetic oils/lubricants are scheduled for Cape Wind, along with fuel oil, motor oil, and diesel. We do know how toxic some of these are to marine life, but no one knows what impacts the synthetics might have.

    These safety issues correspond closely to the exemptions given Deepwater Horizon/Macondo by the corrupt and inept MMS (now BOEMRE). Because deepwater oil drilling and offshore wind farms are both experimental, it is reckless to place the waters in peril. They are a basic need for all living things!

    Energy brokers and govt. bodies need to bring safe products to market, especially when they are at industrial scale like Cape Wind and Macondo/Deepwater Horizon. Otherwise, they are just too dangerous to risk.

    Doug, you can minimize my concerns all you want, but energy alternatives exist that are safer, more efficient, and more reliable than offshore wind farms are. These are the ones deserving our focus NOW as we move away from fossil fuels. When offshore wind turbines truly are up to speed, then they’ll likely be part of the mix, as well.

  22. Jonathan, I never claimed that wind farms would fuel cars. But, since you raise the topic, just consider the emerging market and other forces that are spurring the large-scale introduction of electric cars to the US market. When those vehicles become a substantial portion of the automotive fleet in actual use, then wind farms and other alternative electricity sources WILL in fact ‘fuel our cars’.

    “Just an FYI: your “better engineers” than me at Siemens can’t even get their bearings.” What a ridiculous claim. For example, occasionally, your car has to be repaired. Somethines, that even happens when the car is relatively new. Does that mean that the engineers who designed the car are not capable? Of course not. In any manufacturing process, some small fraction of the units produced inevitably have flaws. And engineers the world over recognize that fact. So some bearings, that were supplied by someone else, are corroding prematurely – so what? Read on:

    “By ISO standards, manufacturers are responsible for the quality of parts supplied by vendors. This is a very bad sign that the Cape Wind turbine manufacturer does not have its act together”. Poor Jonathan. You grasp at the slightest straw in vain attempts to prop up your shortsighted arguments. Here’s a quote from the link you provided: “Work to remedy the problem will take place over the coming weeks. In the meantime, Siemens said, all of the wind farms will continue to operate as normal.” So, no spills of lubricants or other toxics into the waters. Not even any major interruption of the GHG-free power being delivered to the grid. Not much of a disaster scenario, is it?

    And what, exactly, is the emergency that you foresee Siemens or anyone else having to be prepared for? Some disastrous storm? I’ve already made the point that even large storms are extremely unlikely to destroy turbines. And it is virtually impossible to imagine a storm taking down large numbers of wind turbines simultaneously – especially when the turbines are scattered so widely. And even if a few turbines are damaged somehow – where is the emergency? The damaged turbines will be off-line, but the others will continue to deliver their power. Repairs to the damaged ones can take months, if necessary.

    There are few alternatives that are safer, more efficient, and more reliable than wind turbines. Solar panels are one – and I am in favor of those as well. But there’s nothing wrong with wind turbines – offshore or on.

  23. In fact, Jonathan, this whole corroding bearing episode simply adds further substance to MY argument, and lends no support to yours. The fact of the matter is, that routine inspections have uncovered the problem at such an early stage that fixing it will have virtually no impact on the daily operations of the windfarms in question.

    A superb example of good engineering practices at work.

  24. Doug, feel free to support your argument with failed equipment in brand new industrial wind farms! Maybe your sugar coating will stand up to salt water better than Seimens “offshore workhorse” does. **LOL**

    Hey, have they found a boat yet — to go do all those repairs on their brand new wind turbines?

    Seriously, if Seimens has corrosion problems this early on, there could be a lot of scrap metal in the sea before this posting is done.

    But how could bad engineering ever be serious? It happens all the time with cars — like Pinto gas tanks and Toyota brakes … or Firestone tires. All miracles of engineering!

    Cape Wind would just blast holes throughout 25-sq. miles of fragile marine habitat in order to site 130 wind turbines and a (shhhhh…) electrical service platform that burns fossil fuels. They would only dig, dredge, and decimate a little while to make that “healthy” offshore wind farm a reality. What the hay if it’s broken? People will still pay the piper and like it, right?

    The fact is, Earth’s waters are no place for real-time Research and Development (AKA bad engineering and worse gov’t oversight). Macondo/Deepwater is a fresh reminder of that.

  25. Jonathan,

    Wind farms do not “blast holes [in] marine habitat”. You certainly have a very loose grip on reality, based on the ludicrous things you have been prone to claim throughout this debate.

    Furthermore, offshore wind farms are decidedly not research and development projects. They are functioning contributors to green energy production. They are already in fairly heavy use in several parts of Europe. China is developing such projects. So is the U.S. They are far beyond research and development.

    I stand firmly behind my characterization of the corroding bearing problem as a great example of good engineering practices. You clearly do not understand much about engineering. I repeat that defective units are unavoidable in any manufacturing endeavor. Good engineering, in this case, takes the form of following routine inspection and maintenance procedures to catch those problems long before they become major. Clearly, that good engineering practice worked nearly to perfection in this case.

    Finally, I would advise you not to hold your breath waiting for the accumulation of scrap metal in the oceans due to failing wind turbines. They’ll be around, and functioning well, long into the future. Whenever you pass by one, I hope you’ll take the opportunity to reflect on just how benign they are for the environment – with no GHG waste, no usage of non-renewable resources, no negative impacts on the marine ecology or the waters, etc., etc. Enjoy!

  26. Doug, better engineers than you disagree entirely with your arguments. Perhaps your grip on reality needs a Google. Try Cape Wind Final Environmental Impact Statement. It will inform you about siting and operations of offshore wind farms. If they were benign, there would be no such thing as an EIS.

    BTW — Has Siemens been able to find a boat yet so they can actually conduct all of that maintenance that you say they do — on their brand new offshore wind farms?

    Oh, you might also want to read up on the most recent busts in the Euro windfarm petting zoos. Mafia engineering (AKA government subsidy brokering) doesn’t seem to R&D anything. The projects are all fast tracked. Just saying.




  27. Isn’t it fascinating that Jonathan Foxrun and Robbyn Candelaria can write comment after comment about how dangerous a windfarm would be for our coastal waters and not have one single better solution that they can suggest for our energy needs. Disgraceful that some people can relentlessly try to stall something that is for the common good and have no alternative in mind. This “just say no to everything” is what is destroying the precious resources that they claim to want to protect. Grow up and stop acting like children who just scream and stomp their feet no matter what is offered them for their own good.

  28. “If they were benign, there would be no such thing as an EIS”. Once again, this direct quote from Jonathan is 100% incorrect. Environmental impact statements are required for anyproject sited on public lands or in public waters. Regardless of the potential harmful impacts (or lack thereof) that may exist for the project in question.

    I hve yet to encounter one single engineer, who is truly qualified to hold that title; who believes that offshore windfarms are generally dangerous and pose unacceptable risks to the environment.

    Particularly when the environmental benefits of those very same windfarms are so substantial and beyond argument. For example, every pound of GHG avoided via use of offshore windfarms is an environmental benefit to ecosystems the world over – including the very marine ecosystems where the windfarms are located.

    Furthermore, windfarms almost certainly create new marine ecosystems where none existed before. Just as with oil platforms, it is highly likely that the permanent ocean structures associated with windfarms create artifical marine habitat and therefore create new ecosystems. Marine diversity and abundance is almost certainly increased by the presence of windfarms, rather than endangered and/or harmfully impacted.

    And Jonathan’s predictions regarding spills of toxic substances, and his wild speculations about the certain and imminent destruction of offshore windfarms, that kicked off this whole debate – those concerns are not seriously shared by anyengineer worth his or her degree. His arguments along those lines have been easily, and thoroughly, debunked by the simple examples and lines of reasoning I have presented above. But Jonathan simply is not open to opposing arguments or viewpoints. His is a firmly grounded NIMBY perspective that is proof to all reasoned debate.

    His mind is closed.

  29. “So if, metaphorically speaking, we’re driving toward a brick wall at 100 mph, Cape Wind slows us down to 99 mph.”

    This quote by Lazlita Toth illustrates the minimal benefit of a 25-sq. mile offshore wind farm. (ref. Cape Wind final EIS and do the math) “For this birds, fish, marine mammals, benthic infauna, fishermen, and Wampanoag traditions have to take it in the shorts?”

    So tell me again how creating vastly more GHGs in order to build manufacturing facilities – that will build wind turbines (probably in China using lots of cheap coal) – then shipping them to Mass. – then using diesel-powered heavy equipment to install them – and relying on fossil-fuel backup to generate electricity – will be “an environmental benefit to ecosystems the world over”?

    Wind-energy-done-right will continue to be in the mix, but wind turbines can be proverbial square pegs. To be “green,” siting gets equal consideration to other factors.

    Cape Wind shows minimal to no ROI for Earth. But it threatens to deliver great hardship. NIMBY? – more like NIOurBY.

    Tedd, here are solutions for you to consider: Stop feeding the pig! If you want to benefit the Earth, use LESS energy. CONSERVE. Generate your own electricity. Take responsibility for your part rather than relying on a grid that is profit driven and exploitative. Support renewable energy that is ecologically nondestructive, and use your skills to fully develop its potential.

    My mind is open to all renewable energy ideas that follow this most important engineering rule: “First do no harm.”

  30. Jonathan, this is also a true statement: “So if, metaphorically speaking, we’re driving toward a brick wall at 100 mph, one small group of individuals using LESS energy slows us down to 99 mph”. Does this therefore illustrate the minimal benefit of energy conservation efforts? Enough of these nonsensical contrarian arguments. Any one renewable energy project cannot solve the world’s problems alone. But Cape Wind, multiplied hundreds of times over, plus hundreds to thousands of other renewable energy projects the world over; both can and will solve many problems, including AGW.

    Regarding the environmental benefits to ecosystems the world over:
    1) Equipment to produce any form of energy has to be produced before it can be used. Producing wind turbines is no more costly from a GHG perspective than producing more coal-fired power plants is. This is not a valid argument against wind farms. Ditto for shipping and installation GHG impacts – they are also equally applicable to all forms of energy production.
    2) Wind turbines are increasingly being manufactured in the U.S. With more projects like Cape Wind, that trend will likely accelerate. Which is a good thing, because we need renewable energy plants all around the world to begin to make the needed major changes to our energy generation infrastructure.
    3) Once in place, Cape Wind and other offshore wind farms immediately begin to reduce the amount of GHGs that humans pour into the atmosphere. The more Cape Winds there are, the better.
    4) Cape Wind can also be better for the environment than building an equivalent one in Kansas along with a thousand miles of high voltage transmission corridor to bring that power to the northeast. And it can require less GHG to produce and install than the Kansas windfarm along with those thousands of transmission towers, etc. There’s nothing wrong with Kansas wind farms. But we need renewable energy all over – especially near areas of high energy consumption.

    Regarding “feeding the pig”: Everyone is already in favor of energy conservation. But using less energy is not going to solve our problems by itself. In a recent Senate letter, a group called for an overall 1% per year reduction in energy use (which would be a huge energy conservation effort, dwarfing everything else to date): “A 1% per year standard alone would avoid about 215 million metric tons (MMT) of carbon dioxide in the year 2020 and 306 MMT in 2030 … These avoided emissions amount to approximately 9% of electric-sector 2005 emissions by 2020 and 13% by 2030?. Excellent. That sort of reduction would be a huge step in the right direction. BUT … The ‘business as usual’ scenario projects aproximately a 38% increase in primary energy use by 2020 and a 65% increase in primary energy use by 2030, across the whole economy! This stark reality makes clear that we must continue to insist on rapid implementation of renewable energy on a massive scale. Energy efficiency, by itself, cannot hope to deliver the CO2 reductions that are required.


  31. “Cape Wind shows minimal to no ROI for Earth. But it threatens to deliver great hardship”. Complete nonsense. There is no ‘great hardship’ that is threatened by Cape Wind. And all Jonathan’s rantings to the contrary have been shown to be completely unfounded, as I have repeatedly stated above, and as Jonathan has repeatedly ignored.

  32. “For this birds, fish, marine mammals, benthic infauna [sic], fishermen, and Wampanoag traditions have to take it in the shorts?” I leave indigenous traditions to others to discuss. But all the other items listed as ‘taking it in the shorts’ are actually benefitted by Cape Wind.
    – Fewer birds are killed or harmed by offshore wind farms than are killed and deformed by mercury and other toxic emissions from fossil fuel fired power plants. FAR fewer.
    – Few, if indeed any, fish are killed by the presence of wind farms. And fish everywhere are benefitted by reduced levels of CO2 being spewed into the air (and partly absorbed into the water), by virtue of using wind farms to offset power derived from fossil fuels.
    – Ditto for marine mammals.
    – Ditto for benthic fauna.
    – Ditto for fishermen.


    That’s a mantra to make all the difference needed in this world.

    Doug, Ace, in some twisted way I’m going to miss you. One day we might even have another 5-month argument. If so, it can only mean that things are going okay out there in the future because the power is still on. (Mine, however, will NOT be generated by Cape Wind.) Until then, best wishes, as we all try to get it right.

Leave a Comment

Translate »