Cape Cod Offshore Wind Farm Said to Win Approval from Obama

n/t

I think the review process has been a valuable exercise...and I don't think the objections raised by the Wampanoaug's was without merit...and they certainly do not classify as NIMBY's...The Kennedys and other wealthy families however I have less sympathy for...

However, I am glad this was approved. I think environmental concerns outweigh preservation concerns in this case. If this were denied on preservation grounds it would effectively eliminate any spot along the eastern seaboard for this type of project. There is almost no spot on this coast that is not within sight of a historic area...

They are moving into the water because they can't find places on land. They can't find them because folks have already built there. Land based wind is more cost effective.

Compared to the offshore resource, there are virtually no onshore wind resources in the Atlantic region.

To be cost effective the site has to have wind, and it helps a great deal when it is close proximity to places that need the electricity. Most of our country's population is in the coastal regions. Offshore wind is going to be a major part of a clean energy mix.

It's the same wind that blows on shore. But the real difference is the construction and maintanance. And actually, one of the reasons they wanted to use the Cape is that it was both "off shore" and yet in a relatively "protected" area as it were. Like I say, I understand the desires both ways.

I don't know where you get your information, but it is simply incorrect. Check the wind maps at Truwind (Truewind?). What you are possibly talking about is the sea breeze (a recognized, measured phenomena), which isn't a drop in the bucket related to offshore resources.

The University of Delaware is the best resource for Atlantic offshore wind power. You can find several informative articles at their website:
http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/windpower/articles.html

But none the less, no one is claiming the off shore winds aren't "better". But there are on shore winds, and considering the extra cost of off shore facilities, you don't need the on shore winds to be as "good".

I gave you references, please read a couple so you understand what the situation is. This isn't opinion.

I understand what you mean, do you understand what I mean.

Let me represent it this way. Each dot represents a MW of wind resource that is "economically viable" in the eastern US. This is only nearshore, not deep water.



Onshore: ...

Offshore: ............................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................


I just ballparked it, and I'm certain I've erred substantially on the conservative side.

I mean if onshore capacity was already maxed you might have an argument.

Wind companies simply want to gobble up the property that has the highest wind energy value first.

I think you should get a sandwich sign and take your message to the people. Don't forget the shiny hat.



:crazy:

In one of the most heavily used waterways in the United States.

I support wind power, my house is 100% wind powered.

I also support the free and unencumbered use of our public waterways and oceans.

Wind farms should be land based.

I am very sad at this news.

Get over it and stop trying to spread their false talking points.

but you obviously cannot have a reasonable discussion about the pros and cons of this particular project.

It is your use of false claims that I object to - THAT is my problem.

Fuel Cells, CCS, Effects of heat on global warmings, ethanol, hydrogen, nuclear, limits of wind power, etc.

Kris is absolute and all knowing. If you disagree with him get ready to be barraged by Ad-hominem attacks. He is already linking you to pro-fossil fuel groups.


Just use this guy a lot :rofl: he tends to hate that.

He thinks I am part of some conspiracy, I guess.

Why can he not judge this particular project on it's merits?

I have a great passion for that particular part of our seacoast (& all of our waterways).

I also would not be a fan of windfarms in San Francisco Bay or Puget Sound - or any waterway to be totally honest.

But, I do love land based windfarms. I never miss the majestic sentinels of the desert when I visit CA or drive out west in my own state.

The Cape Wind proposal breaks my heart.

It's really as simple as that.

He thinks EVERYONE is part of a conspiracy.
He has called me both a nuclear shill and a solar shill. I mean explain that one.

I understand your reluctance for this project but I think it is necessary.

Currently the cape burns oil (one of few places in country that still does) to produce power. 3 times in last 20 years ships delivering bunker oil to power plants have leaked into the cape.

There is always a cost.

Wind has a fixed cost and revenue is directly related to average sustained winds.
Thus same windfarm in another location offshore would cost just as much yet produces less revenue.

Wind farms are going to be built were ROI is highest and the Cape is one of those locations. So when you combined the revenue potential with fact that the cape already has high power costs (from oil) it is inevitable the cape will be developed.

If it wasn't now it would happen in 5 years, or 10 years when oil is $150 a barrel and electricity prices on the Cape are $0.40 per kwh.

I won't continue to keep it up with him...

I understand the need and I am acutely aware of the environmental impact to the cape from the current system.

As you have figured out, I just don't want to lose our open waterways, I don't believe the cost / benefit analysis justifies what would be lost.

There has to be a better way and a better place.

If only we could transmit our wind power here in TX to my fellow citizens in MA!

Hopefully someday we can.

The problem right now is the highest capacity lines are not where the energy is:



A lot of wind power go wasted in TX because there isn't the long haul grid to get it where it is needed.

There is a long range plan to build some ultra high voltage (765KV DC - almost million volts) transmission network.



It would take a decade and cost about $60 billion though.

Currently in this country we don't have one power grid it is more like 6 regional grids and even inside the regional grid often times the longhaul connections become saturated.

We have a 1980s transmission grid for a 21st century problem.

You are entitled to your feelings. That doesn't allow you to make false assertions and not be called on them.

The petroleum and minerals mining industries are the primary sources of funding for the antiwind movement and they've been bankrolled the opposition to Cape Wind with literally millions of dollars (it was more than 3 million back in 2005).

The false information you are attempting to share is sourced to this effort.

Now that you know I'm sure you'll be more cautious in the future, right?

What "false information" have I attempted to share?

Is this singular location the only place in the United States to plop down a windfarm, in your opinion?

Why not more here in TX - we are the largest wind producer there is!

We don't need to destroy our waterways, we need to work on transmission systems and grids.

Why is doing this to Nantucket Sound the only answer?

When the wind doesn't blow, the lights go out? :shrug:

Guess you think there is like a single turbine powering my house?
Or even a single wind farm?

Help me out. I wasn't aware there was service that could guarantee 100% wind.

Multiple wind farms, using excess distributed renewable generation.

It's expensive, but readily available here.

"I Work on Wind Turbines, I do new construction.
V90’s are trash, Vestas is going to stop making them already, to many issues. The V82’s and the New Vestas Turbines are good.
GE will be leading the market in the the US soon i’m sure — Easier Construction, Maintenace, Cheaper, Transporting is cheaper.

Suzlons are the cheapest tower (Like 2.5 Mil I belive) They put out 2.4 MW. Mitizubishi Towers are expensive and they put out 2.4 also. There are hundreds of Namebrands..

And the other poster is correct, these turbines hardly pay for themselves. Just to pay off the cost of the construction (Rigging, Roadwork, Electrical, Gridwork, Substations, Etc.) will take 30 years.

These towers will last 20-30 years without Major issues, if Maintained correctly. Then they will just replace the Nacell. In the future they will help. Right now it’s all politics =)

For all the fruitcakes that say thjey kill birds and are very loud are sticking on to a 1980’s arguement. Towers since like 1990 Don’t hardy make a sound, and they have started doing better research on locations to avoid wildlife..

The Towers in Tatuhiiti Pass (Sp?) in CA by Mojave, CA are the Loud ones that kill birds (Blades spin way faster, and they are built in a migration area..) They were put up in the 1980’s.

The main problem with windfarms is getting the power into the grid… over 3/4’s of the windfarms cant run at full capaity.

Oh, and there is NO TOWN that is 100% Wind Energy. The power that comes from wind turbines in mixed with power that comes from coal plants too, It’s just a sales pitch saying that. I thought you knew what you were talking about til you mentioned that, heh.

I don’t really care about being green, I’m just happy I have a good job =)"

http://www.metaefficient.com/news/the-tallest-wind-turbines-in-the-us-installed-in-texas.html

You are using some anonymous blog posting to make an empirical point? ha, what a joke.

Who said there was any TOWN that is 100% wind energy?

Your cut & paste from some person's blog has zero relevance to me.

Tell me what you know about wind power in TX - oh yeah, nothing.

My house is 100% wind powered, which is readily available in Texas.

The power you are using at any one time comes from a mixture of wind, coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, etc.

When you buy so-called "100% Wind Power" from your utility you are obligating them to purchase that amount of electricity for their portfolio from a wind farm. Could be tomorrow, could be next week.

There is no utility in the world that can guarantee 100% uptime from wind power alone.

"In January, 2006, we made a landmark purchase of renewable energy credits from wind farms to offset 100% of the electricity used in all of our stores, facilities, bakehouses, distribution centers, regional offices and national headquarters in the United States and Canada. This is the largest wind energy credit purchase in the history of North America and makes Whole Foods Market the only Fortune 500 Company purchasing wind energy credits to offset 100% of its electricity use."

http://www.greentechnolog.com/2007/04/whole_foods_market_uses_100_wind_power_1.html

You keep wanting to argue on a subject for which you are COMPLETELY IGNORANT about.

Do you live here? Are you familiar with TX legislation, the regulation of our utilities or our power grid?

Why do you keep presuming to know something on this topic when you are obviously CLUELESS?

Why the hell are you quoting a Whole Foods press release about their retail store?

Bizarre.

Just because you've been told that you have "100% wind power" doesn't mean the power you're using right now comes from wind.

No need to get pissed off, your money forces the utility to buy that same amount from wind producers at some point in the future. You're not wasting your money.

"Unpredictable wind

One of the big challenges with using wind to replace natural gas is that, unlike the steady flame from natural gas, the wind doesn't blow all the time.

To make sure enough power is available when the wind isn't blowing, backup generators would be needed, said Paul Fremont, an electric-utility analyst at the investment bank Jefferies & Co."

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/22/news/economy/pickens_wind/index.htm

I know what I'm talking about, and if you want me to keep coming up with links I'm more than happy :D

It's annoying.

My windpower is NOT backed up by any other type of power and that is MANDATED AND REGULATED by Texas law.

What do you know about Texas Energy law?

And what could you possibly know about my individual power supply?

Your arrogance in presuming to know more about my power source (and my state) than I do is mind-boggling.

but you haven't come up with one. I've produced several, all you've come up with is attitude.

I'm waiting.

I'm supposed to prove a negative to you???

You're the ignorant one here and I'm laughing at you.

I don't really care what you believe - I live here.

"My windpower is NOT backed up by any other type of power and that is MANDATED AND REGULATED by Texas law."

Find me a reputable link for that and I will concede defeat graciously.

I just LOVE that you think YOU are going to school me on my own state and energy usage.

Seriously, why don't you just look this stuff up before you make an ass of yourself on the internet?

to back it up. I don't know how long you've been here, but that's the way it works.

I'm not going to do your research for you. If you can't back it up, it's bullshit. Sorry.

Are you ready for your crow pie?

Why don't you just admit you that you sometimes spout off on things you really don't know about?

That you might be ignorant of things that happen outside of California?

You couldn't even be bothered to check my profile for my location before telling me how wrong I was about it.

Aw, come on, admit it, this has been really funny.

Waiting on that link for, "My windpower is NOT backed up by any other type of power and that is MANDATED AND REGULATED by Texas law."

It's bullshit, you know it, but you can't admit it. Pity.

I don't presume to "educate" you on where YOU live, you should have the decency to do the same.

At least I bothered to take the time and acknowledge where you are - I haven't tried to "educate" you on California.

Comes across as kind of arrogant - no?

is that I don't have to live somewhere to conceivably know more than residents do about an issue there.

Believe me, I'm very open to being educated about issues in CA from those in TX or anywhere else, for that matter. It would be extremely arrogant for me to assume that *all* people in CA know more about their state than *everyone* who lives elsewhere, wouldn't it?

Now, back to the issue at hand: you came through on your zoning claim (even though you made me look up your city, which was sort of infantile).

Still waiting on the law.

I don't need to "prove" to you that my house is windpowered, it just is & I really don't care if you believe it or not.

We've already proven that you are loathe to actually educate yourself on the possibilities beyond your own knowledge.

Seriously, you wanted to prove me wrong about where I live before even taking a cursory glance at my profile.

Bad form.

I hope you'll learn to accept when you're wrong, it overcomes a huge hurdle to edification. And it's not a particularly attractive trait.

Best of luck.

In my non-zoned skyscraper being 100% windpowered, that is.

Thanks! :hi:

.... and electricity sales. And wtmusic is right. You are not using "100% windpower" for your loads.

Don't end up being like Kristopher.

I thought you said that you were in favor of learning something about a subject before opening your mouth?

So when they signed you up for that 100% wind power plan, did they run all new wiring to your house or just train the magic gnomes in the lines to spot the green current and steer it to you?

:rofl:

And another :rofl: at your continued belief that living somewhere adds credibility to an opinion (unless, of course, you live on the Cape and support wind power).

And you highlight that with each and every post.

Is it that you don't understand the word or that you're just wedded to your ignorance?

Electricity is about the most fungible commodity in the world.

But by all means... continue to entertain the rest of the board with your insistence that you actually know what you're talking about. :rofl:

My 100% wind powered house does not use "fungible" credits.

I know you are still lagging behind Texas in leaps and bounds when it comes to wind power, but because you can't imagine how this all works, does not mean it is not so.

Wouldn't you look less foolish if you edited that earlier post before making that claim? :rofl:

My 100% wind powered house does not use "fungible" credits.

Call them "credits" (IIRC, credits in TX are more appropriate for commercial clients) or "deregulated" or whatever you like, but the effect is the same. The current that comes to your home comes from any number of sources and you PAY extra to be able to SAY that you're green. The extra amount pays for new renewable generation, so the EFFECT is the same as if you were 100% renewable, but the REALITY is not. There are no homes anywhere in the US that have 24/7 service provided entirely by wind power. None.


When you're ready to visit reality... just let me know.


Tell you what. Give us the name of the provider. I'm betting Green Mountain.

Look what happened to him.

You are 100% wrong about my power source and all the laughing icons in the world won't change it.

Again, no wonder my state is so far ahead of everyone else.

But, you just keep telling yourself that nothing exists outside your limited experience.

Nope, not Green Mountain, but please, do keep Googling "wind power in Texas" and maybe you will learn something.

Must be some kind of record. So while I've been correct in pointing out your errors... I'm "like" someone who got something wrong. I guess that makes me guilty by association.

You are 100% wrong about my power source

I'd say put up or shut up, but I know that you're incapable of accepting your errors or shutting up... and just as incapable of proving your claim... so you'll just continue to bluster without semantic content.

Come on... who is your provider? I'm betting Green Mountain.

Seriously, you might learn a thing or two.

If you had something... you would have posted it by now.

My bet is that you've finally "read up" and learned of your error but aren't a big enough man to admit it.

In which case, Texas is probably wrong for you.

You do realize that you're posting in a forum where people have a good deal of experience with wind energy and how it is sold and marketed, don't you?

And it is not my job, or inclination, to relieve you of your laziness or lack of motivation to actually educate yourself.

I don't give a crap what you don't know about the Energy Policy of Texas and I don't have 25 years to bring you up to speed.

If this forum is so knowledgeable on the intricacies of TX Energy Law & Policy, including our mandates, then why don't you get a Texas Energy Expert to explain it to you in terms you can understand?

Lord knows, you won't bother to do it yourself.

…the facts keep you from putting up… OCD keeps you from shutting up… is that it?

:rofl:

…to post the name of a provider… but you have time to post this e-diarrhea over and over and over again?

Yeah… that’s believable.

Do you think that there is anybody who can’t tell that it’s because you’ve checked that provider’s website and now know your error?


For the record, I'm well aware of how deregulated power in TX works AND how they "sell" it. There isn't a single home anywhere in the state that gets ALL of their electricity from the wind (unless they're off the grid and can live with powerless days). What you CAN do if buy an amount of kwh each month that matches the amount you consume, but that isn't the same thing as knowing that ANY of the actual electricity in your home came from a wind farm.

.... and now have about the same credibility as Kristopher. YOU obviously don't understand the Texas energy market. You've been duped by your energy retailer and now won't even admit who it is, so the rest of us can check the facts.

Notice that no one (especially us Texans here) are backing you up. You've lost the credibility battle here.

But federally protected waters are not going to be nearly as affected as land would. So you gotta steer around some big turbines, big whoop.

Can't argue with indifference to our seaways and oceans.

You'll probably never go there anyway, so why do you care - right?

Some people simply don't care about our oceans, can't help that.

Yaknow, those fishermen who want "open waterways."

Was just talking about this with an avid fisherman from buzzards bay. We believe the base of the towers will actually make rod and reel fishing better. Think I will have to go check the area out this summer. Some friends are going to be after me to take them out there to see it.

Some fish would actually hang around the towers and, as you suggest, rod&reel fishing could benefit (and it would be easy to find your favorite spot)... but commercial fishing could have a harder time working around all the anchoring lines.

I mean other than for Lobster.

On edit it appears trawling for Squid.

I don't remember seeing any actively fishing in the area (we avoided shoal water with our draft), but I saw them in transit.

I do know that it was one of Kennedy's (et al) concerns with the plan, so I presume it's true.

The Dept. of the Interior leases just about any kind of land the government owns, whether it's underwater or not. And it's been doing it for a long time.

Get a grip.

I see you are fine w/gov't leases of public property to energy corporations for private profit.

I'm not.

:D

If you go to pretty much any national park there are hotels, restaurants, and other concessions making big money.

Here are quite a few people who think you're energy needs are encroaching on their scenic vista. There's no difference, really.

http://www.powtl.com/

Nantucket Sound is available for any citizen to enjoy. That will now be lost to privatization.

The west TX windfarm properties belong to ranchers - it is their private property to do with whatever they choose.

I get it, you just don't care about the national treasure that is the Nantucket Sound.

And you seem to be totally cool about using National Parks for whatever private profit can be sucked out of them.

I'm not.

The reason why there are zoning laws is so that someone can't build a skyscraper next to the beautiful home you just bought.

It turns out that land-based wind farms have a negative impact that extends beyond their property boundaries - just like the ones in Nantucket Sound.

See, if you knew anything about Texas (which you keep presuming to comment about), you would know that well-known fact.

And, I happen to live in a beautiful skyscraper, as a matter of fact.

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/development/

You're just getting silly now.

Here's a clue: I don't live in Austin, champ.

Again, for the slow: There is NO ZONING where I live.

I'd be happy to find you the zoning laws for your area. Hint: you're going to lose this one.

I didn't know Houston had no zoning laws. That's bizarre.

I eat crow. *burp*

I think the point here, though is that's an anomaly - and that land use is a very "live issue", even in Houston:

"Residents of Southampton and Boulevard Oaks have hired trial attorney Rusty Hardin to assist them in opposing the development of a 23-story high-rise proposed for the corner of Bissonnet and Ashby.

"Rusty has been engaged by our community to pursue all of the legal options that our neighborhoods can use to stop the proposed development," Chris Amandes, who is working with Hardin and a group of lawyers who live in the area and oppose the project, said in a statement.

Matthew Morgan and Kevin Kirton of Houston-based Buckhead Investment Partners plan to develop the tower at 1717 Bissonnet, which is currently home to the Maryland Manor Apartments."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl//5178375.html

Yeah, the Ashby highrise proposal is a burr under the saddle of the folks that live there (& I understand why), but they won't advance their case based on any ZONING claim.

One of Houston's claims to fame is our No Zoning policy.

About 1000 posts ago I said you could put a wind turbine right next door to my house and it would be fine - I wasn't kidding, LOL.

some fun.

Even more fun will come when the pieces of crap start breaking into little pieces in the first good solid Nor'easter, leaving little lubricant slicks to settle on the lobster beds.

You would think we would be done with trashing the sea after this past week, but, sigh...

yup

Thus your pluralization of "anti-renewable power nuts" is incorrect.

We need a smiley of a little person in a green bathtub.

This one has fallen apart.