Please read and comment on the attached summary of the proposal to produce electricity off Nantucket through a wind farm
**********************************
Report sees few drawbacks on wind farm
A long-awaited federal report on the proposed wind farm in Nantucket Sound says the project would do little or no harm to fish, birds, and the surrounding seafloor, and would not drive down local property values, as Cape Wind Associates seeks final approval to start construction next year.
Cape Wind Associates, of Boston and Yarmouthport, wants to build the nation's first offshore wind farm in a 24-square-mile area in Horseshoe Shoal. The proposal calls for 130 turbines, spaced half a mile to a third of a mile apart. Each turbine would be 260 feet above sea level, with the tips of the rotor blades reaching 420 feet into the air. The project is estimated to cost more than $700 million and take about 27 months to install. According to the developer, the project could produce, at average output, an amount equivalent to about 75 percent of the Cape's average electricity demand and help reduce air pollution from power plants that burn fossil fuels. The draft also found the wind farm would diversify the region's energy mix, reduce the costs of "adverse health impacts" from existing fossil fuel-burning power plants, create nearly 400 full-time jobs and generate an economic national benefit of an estimated $1.5 billion to $2 billion.
Cape Wind has spent more than $13 million in the preparation of the draft and in construction of a data collection tower now functioning in the general area where the turbines would be located. A 4,000-page draft environmental impact statement was produced by the Army Corps of Engineers. The release of the draft, some 34 months in preparation, almost didn't happen at all. Under existing federal laws, the Corps is the only federal agency that has permitting authority for the project. Under the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act, the Corps has authority to issue permits for any structures in navigable waters. After a 60-day public comment period, the Corps will respond to comments, prepare a final environmental impact statement along with state officials, and then decide whether it will issue the permit. Corps officials estimated the final environmental impact statement would not be completed until the middle of next year. The statement must be finished before the Corps can issue its "record of decision on whether or not to issue a permit."
Specifically, the draft says the turbines could kill as many as 364 birds per year -- about one a day -- but notes that number is unlikely to affect endangered species or specific populations of birds. The project's impact on shellfish and fish populations would probably be felt only during construction.
The report noted that visual impact from the country's first proposed offshore wind farm would be ''adverse" for some historical areas, such as the Kennedy Compound and the Nantucket Historic District.
Federal law requires developers to pay for data collection. Because no federal standards exist on, for example, how many bird deaths are acceptable at a wind farm, the Corps has wide discretion in weighing the costs and benefits that drive its decision.
Among the findings in the executive summary:
Nearby homes' property values are not likely to drop, based on government-funded studies at other wind farms. The area would see economic benefits, according to the report summary, because the wind farm would create jobs and could increase tourism.
Navigation, a concern of the many recreational boaters and commercial fishermen who use the waterway, would not become more hazardous, although boaters would have to take extra care during poor weather navigating near turbine towers spaced more than a quarter-mile apart over the roughly 24-square-mile area. Continued...
The project would improve public health by generating energy without emitting pollutants. The report estimates the public health savings each year at $53 million.
The project would not adversely affect some historic properties, such as the Oak Bluffs Christian Union Chapel and the Martha's Vineyard Campground Historic District. But in addition to affecting the Kennedy compound and Nantucket's district, the wind farm would alter the character and setting of four other historic Cape districts and 10 historic properties.
As part of the environmental review, the Army Corps looked closely at four possible alternative sites for the plant, including a land-based site at the Massachusetts Military Reservation on Cape Cod.
Although other offshore wind farms have been proposed around the country, such as one off Long Island, Cape Cod's is the largest and the first to go through the federal permitting process. Elsewhere in the world, offshore wind farms are becoming more popular, especially as residents fight to exclude wind turbines from scenic mountaintops. The draft is the first official indication of how the project will be received by the federal government.
The project already has weathered opposition from several local and national politicians, including Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts. Last month, Virginia senator John Warner was unable to add language to a defense bill that would have delayed the project indefinitely. ''Cape Wind essentially wrote [the draft report], so it is not surprising it is headed toward building the project," said Susan Nickerson, executive director of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, the main opposition group to the wind farm. ''We will begin our own analysis" once we get a copy of the report, she added.
2 comments:
I think we should sacrifice Alabama and replace the entire state with wind farms.
But if that's too unreasonable... then I think the only real solution is to reduce energy consumption, not increase its production in accordance with our ever-growing 'needs.' Until consumption plateaus, the population stabilizes, and renewable energy sources are developed, there will continue to be energy problems. I don't see any other workable solution - even sacrificing Alabama.
Energy has become essential, erroneously so, for our lives. If we are to follow this path of consumption, then it is only ethical that we limit those affected by our choices: be it the children with asthma, or the dead birds and fish.
The problem with this scenario is that we get stuck on what will be hurt while never considering what is actually needed in the first place. (This point, while having been mentioned before in these comments, will be overlooked in the Environmental Impact Statement where it could make a difference): If we are to use energy, then we must find clean energy sources. If we are to use clean energy sources, then we must limit its impact on the environment. If we can not limit its impact on the environment, then we must not use those clean energy technologies. If we do not use clean energy technologies for these reasons, then we can not justify using dirty energy technologies. Therefore, we must not use electric energy, until non-harmful technologies are developed.
Post a Comment