Offshore Wind Energy

[Debra B]

Want to see ugly - look at a coal-fired plant

Even with scrubbers, they are not nice to be around, and not nice to look at.Coal gasification is here. This will be another fuel you can run through turbine-fired generating plants. GE will sell you a complete system you can install at your coal mine. They are building one in Indiana for 900M bucks. But it still produces Carbon Dioxide/monoxide and some other polutants (the process of gasification removes most of the really bad stuff before it gets burned.) So this should be a good source for some time.Even so, alternative sources are needed. Wind generation is getting to be a fairly mature field of technology - thanks to the Europeans.The Nantucket installation is opposed by people who are all in favor of alternative energy - as long as they don't have to look at it.

 

[Roger5024]

A point missed

As noted by previous szilors, the Horseshoe Shoals windfarm plan is the main story for every edition of the Cape Cod Times. But to me NIMBY is not the real issue. It is oversight. This is only econoically feasible in Nantucket Sound because there is this odd, small area in the Sound that is Federal water, between the three-mile boundaries. Even though completely surrounded by land in MA (Cape Cod , Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket Island and Monomoy Island, it is a Sound not a Bay as one can enter it from the Atlantic and pass through it (although it is pretty hairy through either channel, and only for smaller craft). The Feds have almost no process for industrializing water by building a windfarm, although rather stringent oversight for other energy installations, such as oil rigs. So the developers, in my opinion want to set these up quick before more sensible and sensitive procedures are put into place. Then, when in a few years the windfarm gets less profitable, perhaps due to new technologies that could be land-based, or the high cost of maintaining the towers, they will walk away leaving all tose concrete and steel structures to rot.One other point: If we really just want the wind energy without regard to aesthetics, I suggest that the entire National Seashore of Cape Cod facing the Atlantic could support many hundreds, maybe thousands of towers. Or maybe New York Harbor. The entire Jersey Shore.On the other hand, the feds own a huge tract of land in the center of Cape Cod already (a 'Military Preserve') that they don't know what to do with. Don't you think it would be more cost efective to put windmills all over it and service them by land instead of by boat? Everybody wants renewable energy. But all costs need to be considered when planning the best installations in the best areas. I also think that there may be a huge oil reserve under the Capital in DC.Of course I have spent a lot of time sailing off Hyannis, and I would not like to see an industrial park there, but the situation is a lot more complicated than the rich sailors against the burdened electric consumers, as has been clearly suggested by more than one letter to the editor.I, by the way, am a very poor sailor who has to harness wind so as not to burn fossil fuels.

 

[eds928gt]

Well, not really.

First, the Federal oversight of anything placed in/on the OCS is the responsibility of the Minerals Management Service (MMS) which has only been doing it (including when it was part of BLM and USGS) since 1953. Operators have tried, but have found that nothing they do gets by the MMS.Second, you can believe whatever you want, but there is/are no huge oil reserves or even oil or gas resources under any part of Washington, DC. Too bad - I wish there were.The NIMBY argument seems the main reason for oposition to the proposed windmills/windfarms. It's one of the issues raised in CA with regard to offshore drilling platforms. Californians per capita use far more fuel than anyone else in the country. There are huge amounts of known oil and gas reserves and resources in CA waters and the Federal OCS. But they don't want it produced cause they don't like looking at platforms (even though the nearest platforms in Federal waters look about the size of a dime held at arms length). Of course, they also fear there will be another oil-spill. However, there hasn't been a spill since 1968 due to more stringent safeguards and improved drilling technology.That doesn't seem to matter to the NIMBY and GOO (Get Oil Out) crowd. They have managed to make their case to legislators and force a drilling moratoria off most of the east and west coasts of the US, as well as the west coast of FL and parts of AK. Oh well, I guess we'll just have to drain the Arabian peninsula first. ;^)~ Happy sails to you ~ _/) ~

 

[Jeff Bole]

It's not that bad....

We all agree that wind energy is not free and has some problems, but the opposition is blowing these out of proportion.1) Costs. Wind generators are not inexpensive to build or maintain, but the same goes for any other form of power generation. Wind has the advantage of zero fuel cost.2) Aesthetics. Very subjective here, I personally have found wind farms to be tantalizing, with their slow turning blades rotating in sync while producing energy with no pollution. No power plant is gorgeous, but at least wind does not contribute to smog or acid rain and it has no potential impact on theorized climate change issues.3) Bird Kills. Get your heads out of the 70's folks. Older wind generators were small and turned very quickly, killing birds. Modern generators turn slowly and pose no hazards to birds. Offshore generators will actually be a boon for birds, giving them a place to roost and better fishing due to the reefs that will develop around their bases.4) Obstacles. I highly doubt that there will be a several mile zone of protection around wind generators, they don't even have that around ports and military bases. And if you are such a poor sailor that you worry about running into them, get off the water now as there are plenty more less visible obstacles out there. The wind generators will be well lit and charted (what a concept!). I actually appreciate the Air Force's offshore towers between here and Key West. They prove to be great navigational aids, especially on those dark and stormy nights.

 

[Clamhead]

Horseshoe Shoals

Here is the link to the special website the Cape Cod Times has devoted to this issue. You can go there and get links to all of the pro and con sites.http://www.capecodonline.com/special/windfarmPersonally, I am against having the windfarm built in the Sound but you can go there and get links to both views on the issue. I have seen windfarms out West and was appalled at how invasive they were. Not to mention the fact that a good percentage are damaged and not working each time I am there. As for navigation, I am curious how I am going to be able to pick out navigation buoys through 520 blinking lights at night. There will be a ring of fog horns around the site as well. There will be a 10 story tall transformer platform which will be approximately ½ acre in size using 40,000 of oil as coolant. All of this starts less than file miles offshore. Not in my back yard? You bet. We don’t need another Big Dig in Nantucket Sound.

 

[Chuck]

Texan's view

While we don't use them in the Gulf yet, we have a company providing clean energy via wind farms on the high plains (1500-2000 ft up) of West Texas.I am a 'slighly to the right of Attila the Hun' Publican who enjoys chiding his liberal friends who don't think the enviroment is worth a penny per unit (about $25 a month extra on my bill, 3600 sq ft house)Clean, relatively cheap and so far offshore you can't see them.Why this isn't a bigger item on mosts agendas is beyond me.

 

[eds928gt]

At those distances, you won't see them.

Even with a good pair of binoculars, those windmills will look like toothpicks held out at arm's length. I'm sure the Coast Guard will make sure that any lighting placed on them will comply with established navigational lights. The same is true for fog-horns.Keep in mind, the less we do to develop renewable energy resources, the more dependent we will become on non-renewable energy resources. Would you rather have MORE oil tankers entering Boston harbor?~ Happy sails to you ~ _/) ~

 

[Clamhead]

Horseshoe Shoals

There is a test data tower 200 feet tall at one of the furthest edges of the proposed sight. It does not have a turbine or blades and you can see it from shore on a good day. You can also see structures Such as water towers and antennae on Martha's Vineyard which are 11 miles away and shorter than the proposed 427 foot windmills. Since the towers will be closer than the data tower and only half way to the Vineyard, I'm pretty sure they'll be very visible.

 

[eds928gt]

So, you'll see them.

Is that worse than MORE oil tankers entering the harbor? Take your pick. It's either develope renewable energy resources or more tankers. I don't want to alarm you, but statistically, most oil-spills come from tankers. Moreover, tanker oil-spills are usually massive. Remember the Exxon Valdez?~ Happy sails to you ~ _/) ~

 

[Scott]

I tend to agree with you, Clamhead

I think that Horseshoe Shoals, smack dab in the middle between Nantucket, Martha's Vineyad and Cape Cod, is not an appropriate place for a windfarm. I think the area is far more important as a recreational area for boaters such as us, and should be maintained that way for our enjoyment.I also think there has to be coastal locations that are appropriate for windfarms. I think Jeff's post is also right on the money. The regulatory role of the federal government needs to be oversight that balances the needs and identifies the appropriate locations within federal jurisdiction. We need alternative energy sources just as we need recreational opportunities. Furthermore, the government needs to establish and enforce regulations that ensure that the sites are utilized efficiently and safely, including the requirement for remediation bonds that keep derilict sites from being tolerated. The energy industry (and us as consumers) has to be willing and able to absorb these costs for the sites to be feasible. In short, the government has to do harder work to protect our collective interest, not just be obstructive because that is the easier response.While I completely sympathize with sailors that are concerned about losing valuable sailing grounds and I think the aesthetics of the Horseshoe Shoals area is important to us commoners, I laugh at the likes of "Earth friendly" politicians such as the Kennedys because of their opposition. Watching them try to defend their self-serving motivation is like catching them with their pants down.

 

[Augie Byllott]

Off Shore Wind Energy

Take your choice; coal, natural gas, oil, wind, nuclear, solar.Each one has advantages and disadvantages.