Cape Wind Farm

What is your opinion of the Cape Wind proposal?

  • I'm in favor of it.

    Votes: 101 87.8%

  • I'm against it.

    Votes: 13 11.3%

  • I don't care.

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Total voters
    115
ScottB said:
Does anyone have a good link to a (preferrably neutral) source that does a realistic financial analysis of the Cape Wind project? I've only done a cursory search, but haven't found much - and what little I have found, either on wind power in general or this project in particular, has been pretty partisan stuff. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I would also be interested in this info. +1
 
Being a private project is Cape Wind required to disclose a financial analysis of project? I don't think gaining offshore rights from the government requires Cape Wind to inform the government of the finances of the project.
 
crash575 said:
Being a private project is Cape Wind required to disclose a financial analysis of project? I don't think gaining offshore rights from the government requires Cape Wind to inform the government of the finances of the project.
Click to expand...

How long does it take for a session to time out on this forum? I just typed a response and hit submit, only to get bounced out and asked for my password again. ARGH! Here?s another try?

Not trying to be sarcastic, but wouldn?t there be a pretty big risk of a ?Filene?s on the Sea? if the developer didn?t have the finances to make the project work? Or if the project, once operational, wasn?t financially viable? Not saying that?s the case, but why would ?the government? approve the rights without seeing the numbers?

That said, I probably should have been more clear that I was curious about the cost of electricity to us end users, not necessarily the profitability of the project to the developer (although that would be interesting to see as well!). Government subsidies, tax breaks and all sorts of other financial tricks will of course make it very difficult to get a true number, and make an accurate comparison ? but still, wouldn?t it be nice to know what an independent party thought of the numbers?

Admittedly, I haven?t read every page of the Cape Wind website - but even there the only mention of electricity cost is a pretty fuzzy claim that ?[the project] will reduce electricity prices in New England by $25 million per year?. That?s about 2 bucks per ?New Englander?, and there?s no indication of how that number was derived.

I?m all for environmentally friendly, ecologically sound, endlessly renewable, domestically generated power sources?.but if it means paying even a little more than I?m currently paying for power, I would prefer to know the options (both existing and proposed) and be able to have an informed opinion.

Of course, this is a fairly ?contentious? issue - and I?m not looking to provoke a heated debate (and maybe archBoston.org isn't the right forum for this discussion) but I'd like to look at the thing objectively and cost is no small component of that. I?ve heard/read quite a bit about views from $30 million homes on the beach, undersea native American burial grounds, navigational annoyances, etc., etc. ? but not a whole lot about the true economic merits of the project.
________
R1200RT
 
Last edited:
Scott - that used to happen to me all the time. I've found that a combination of the browser remembering my password and checking the "Remember Me" box have completely eliminated this.
 
kennedy said:
Scott - that used to happen to me all the time. I've found that a combination of the browser remembering my password and checking the "Remember Me" box have completely eliminated this.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the suggestion kennedy, it was probably only about 20 minutes since I logged in, so I didn't think I had to worry about it. I was on my wife's laptop too, so I didn't have the benefit of cookies. I need to remember my tactic of typing anything over 1 paragraph in Notebook/Word, then copy/pasting....
________
CL200
 
Last edited:
I am all for alternative energy solutions, but wind farms seem to me that they will be obsolete relatively quickly given the rapid increases in solar production efficiency. I worry that in 10 years we will be stuck with this wind farm in Nantucket Sound that will not be producing enough energy and doing untold damage to the marine wildlife in the area.

Isn't the better solution to utilize existing rooftops to install solar, which will then be easier to upgrade as the technology advances in the coming years?
 
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Turbines off the coast? Hell, NO! Dogs shitting at will on the beach? HELL, YES!!

dogbeach__1272515228_7821-1.jpg
 
We should build wind farms all along the coast, on the high plains, and in the dessert. And I'd like to see solar panels on everybody's roof.
 
HenryAlan said:
We should build wind farms all along the coast, on the high plains, and in the dessert. And I'd like to see solar panels on everybody's roof.
Click to expand...

And we should cap every geyser with turbines, too. Time to put a harness on Ol' Faithful.
 
I've always thought that a small wind farm atop a few mountains in the Presidential Range up in New Hampshire, by Mt. Washington, would yield enough electricity to make the majority of the North Conway area "green." The wind is consistently very strong up there, so I imagine it would only take a small number of turbines. Of course, it would never happen, because people would be terrified of the obliteration of the natural landscape.
 
kennedy said:
I've always thought that a small wind farm atop a few mountains in the Presidential Range up in New Hampshire, by Mt. Washington, would yield enough electricity to make the majority of the North Conway area "green." The wind is consistently very strong up there, so I imagine it would only take a small number of turbines. Of course, it would never happen, because people would be terrified of the obliteration of the natural landscape.
Click to expand...

A lot of mountains, particularly ski resorts, already have cell towers at their peaks. Perhaps turbines could placed atop those. Might interfere with signals, though...

Even if you got all of them, it probably doesn't equate to much energy, anyways.
 
Here is an interesting table from the US Energy Information Administration about the leveled cost of new power sources*. I hadn't realized that the costs of offshore wind power are that significantly higher than conventional power sources. This table doesn't take into account negative externalities.

*Last column.
elcngr_tbl.jpg
 
That?s a good link/chart, thanks. I took a quick look at the link, and if I read the summary correctly, it looks like,

A) the costs for coal/gas are overstated based on the assumption (probably not a bad one unfortunately) that some form of cap-and-trade/carbon-tax will be implemented and
B) the costs for wind are understated because ?In addition, intermittent technologies (e.g.- wind, solar) do not provide the same contribution to system reliability as dispatched resources, and may require additional system investment (not shown) to achieve a desired level of reliability.?

So according to that one source, offshore wind costs about DOUBLE what conventional power costs, even when burdening the conventional sources with fees and not building something to power your fridge when the wind isn?t blowing. Hmmm.

This report from the Royal Academy of Engineering in London says something similar: http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publications/list/reports/Cost_Generation_Commentary.pdf

This graph from the British report (while not as detailed, and in different units) seems to closely mirror the ratios in that US chart.

4564493138


I think everybody realizes that ?renewable energy? costs more than what we?ve been using for a couple hundred years - and some would argue that "green" energy is worth it, whatever the cost. But I wonder if knowing just how much more would change any of the "I'm in favor of it" votes?
________
Harley-Davidson WLA
 
Last edited:
Looks like I failed the image insert test....I'll figure it out eventually, but in the meantime, if anyone wants to see it, the graph is in that link (which hopefully works, but can also be found by searching for "The Cost of Generating Electricity").
________
home made vaporizer
 
Last edited:
Should we be willing to pay more for wind and solar powered electricity so that we don't kill more coal miners and foul the entire Gulf Coast seashore again?

Anyone who's still against Cape Wind after seeing what has happened in Louisiana has their priorities seriously out of whack.
 
Ron Newman said:
Anyone who's still against Cape Wind after seeing what has happened in Louisiana has their priorities seriously out of whack.
Click to expand...

THANK YOU. This has always seemed to me to be a bunch of rich schmucks against a better world. I've been to Denmark and seen the turbines there, they are frickin cool. Bring 'em on.
 
I think the prices show that, although it's good to occasionally take on these projects for field study and a little green energy in combination with additional extensive lab testing, there is currently a need for natural gas and nuclear facilities. Natural gas is currently the cheapest, most abundant, and cleanest burning fossil fuel. Nuclear plants yield the most energy with the least fuel despite it's obvious drawback, though relatively small amount, of nuclear waste. If we started commissioning these plants in 10 years, we [should] have those nuclear plants until 2060 and natural gas plants until 2070. By 2060, we will probably have developed far more efficient solar panels and wind turbines, if not completely revolutionized the energy industry with something new.

However, if we went with solar and wind right now, we would be replacing these things in 2040, probably. Let's say we're halfway to getting it below the price of natural gas and nuclear power at that time, so we payed triple the price now, plus maybe double the price of natural gas and nuclear power in 2040; basically, we will have payed 5 times the price for the same amount of energy until 2060 or so.


Disclaimer: Haven't slept in 50+ hours, working like mad tonight on a paper due tomorrow, I'm not well learned on energy, and I obviously haven't taken into account currently old plants or plants currently being built being decommissioned.

tl;dr: Me possibly talking out of my ass because I'm currently not in a normal state of mind.
 
Ron Newman said:
Should we be willing to pay more for wind and solar powered electricity so that we don't kill more coal miners and foul the entire Gulf Coast seashore again?

Anyone who's still against Cape Wind after seeing what has happened in Louisiana has their priorities seriously out of whack.
Click to expand...

Ron, with all due respect, it?s those kinds of knee jerk responses (and insults) that attempt to put an end to a serious debate, but instead make you look maybe just a little too biased and irrational.

As I stated, I?m all for clean/green power, but if people would take a little more time doing research and educating themselves about the alternatives and the costs, instead of believing everything they read in the Boston Globe or see on MSNBC ? maybe we would make some different decisions. (And before you dismiss me as a Fox News watching ?tea bagging? wingnut, I?d like to say that I do watch/read all types of media, right and left ? and for the most part, they?re all nuts.) I care about the facts, which are often difficult to find even when looking for them. Personally, I?m a nuclear power fan ? but I probably shouldn?t open that can of worms.

I?m sure you have plenty of other ammunition to shoot down the discussion, but to address the two points you made.

Oil spills. Everybody loves to show pictures of oil slicks from outerspace, or pelicans covered in black goop, but while they boost ratings (and environmental conservation arguments) these accidents are exceedingly rare. Not to mention the fact that they aren?t even the main oil ?polluter? of the oceans. They aren?t number 2. Or number 3. They?re the fifth ?largest? polluter of the ocean ? and at about 37 million gallons a year, a little more than HALF the amount that NATURALLY seeps out of the ocean floor and eroding sedimentary rocks. The statistics are a little dated (1995), so they may have worsened (or improved?), but I doubt they?ve changed significantly. See for yourself if you?d like: http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCEAN_PLANET/HTML/peril_oil_pollution.html

Obviously, the other big oil polluters in the ocean are on the green hit list too ? auto and industrial emissions, etc. ? but certainly those sources are constantly improving and lowering their ?pollution footprint? (also at great financial cost I might add).

Mining accidents. Mining accidents, or any other deadly accident for that matter, are a tragedy, and I feel terribly for those affected?but they?re accidents, right? I?m not saying mining couldn?t be safer, but to argue that occasional accidents are the reason to stop mining seems a bit extreme to me. Besides, how many people die every day driving in a car? Would you suggest we ban all travel? Planes crash every once in a while, I don?t see airports shutting down.

Curious, do you still take the occasional dip in the ocean after hearing about a shark attack in Florida? Sorry, I don?t mean to be harsh, but it seems environmental discussions often bring out the passion in some of us.

BTW, have you ever seen one of those videos of a large windmill spinning out of control and shattering, sending car sized shrapnel for hundreds of yards? Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3FZtmlHwcA

Not sure if one of these accidents has killed anyone - yet ? but I wouldn?t call for an end to windmills because they can kill (not likely to happen at sea, but in a populated area, who knows). Kind of an extreme example, but that's the point.
________
Kawasaki VN1500R
 
Last edited:
What i want to know is, what are the chances that these will remain a permanent fixture after there useful service lives?

No one can predict the future, but is it plausible that after 30-40 years, solar/nuclear (solar with technology, nuclear with public perception) will have made such big strides that these will be taken down and replaced with nothing as they just would not be able to compete, or will capewind just replace them with newer, more efficient turbines as this technology advanced as well. If i remember correctly, over the course of approval this technology evolved. The original plan was to go with 3MW turbines, but the technology improved efficiency, so now they are going with 3.6MW.

Basically I am asking, is Nantucket Sound lost forever, or will this be a temporary, albeit long, stop gap until other power options improve?


I support the decision btw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top