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.
That?s a great point palindrome. I had considered that myself, but I?m not really opposed to it because of the impact on the views, or the sound itself ? it?s mostly financial for me. I agree (again, cost not considered) that a ?nice? thing about a project like this is that it?s in the water ? all you need to do is yank up the footings/foundations and cables and you?re essentially back to ?pre-windmill vistas? and unencumbered sailing.
The thing is, while the turbines, and I think the blades themselves may need replacement relatively early (give or take 20-25 years), there?s a lot of sunk cost (ha!) that I would think would make it unlikely that they would abandon the project (e.g. ? monopoles/footings, transmission cables, substation on land, etc.). Of course, those things have a lifespan as well and might need to be replaced or removed at some point (more expense, perhaps to taxpayers?), so maybe the financials would favor just yanking it all out and/or burying it at some point.
So, I totally agree that there?s very limited permanent impact to the sound and the views, which is a positive aspect of the project. I just think it?s unlikely and would be costly to ?unwind? the project.
Incidentally, my brother in-law has what I think is a unique perspective on this project. He?s an electrical power engineer and has worked for about a decade for various electric utilities in the northeast. He also was largely responsible for the planning and construction of the Cross Sound Cable (underwater cable between CT and Long Island). For the past several years, he?s been building out a substantial part of the west Texas wind power transmission grid. Put those in a blender and puree for a few seconds - and you?ve got Cape Wind. Anyway, he?s definitely an environmentally conscious guy (btw, we both are donors to/members of the Sierra Club, Mt. Washington Observatory, National Trust for Historic Preservation, among others) but he also understands the finances ? and he?s absolutely certain that windmills (especially off-shore) are not even close to a financially justifiable (on their own merits) given current and/or near-term technology.
Given the costs, logistical and legal challenges, etc., etc. and based on his experience, he used one word to describe Cape Wind, a ?nightmare?. Being shot at (yes, actually fired upon) by an angry fisherman in Long Island Sound while aboard the cable laying vessel might have skewed his perspective ? but not much, he actually thinks it was funny. Massachusetts mariners are tougher than those sissy CT fisherman too, so watch out! (Just kidding
)
I don?t discuss this stuff with him often, and I don't think his opinion has affected mine very much, it just reinforces it.
BTW, I would say I?m probably 70/30 opposed/in favor of the project. Given the costs and challenges, I?d just like to see the financial resources applied more efficiently ? especially given the state of our economy and long term debts. Anyone who says this is a ?private project? and the financials don?t matter (either to "the government" or the ratepayers) has absolutely no clue how these things work.
________
GL1100I
