21 Objections to Cape Wind, Discussed

In case you did not know, I'm an avid supported of wind energy and Cape Wind. I originally posted this on the old YACK to answer many of the misconceptions and bits of misinformation that the opponents of the Cape Wind project have spouted over the last couple of years. If this changes one person's mind about wind power, I'll be happy. What follows are the top 21 objections I've heard about the project and a discussion of each.

1. We've had windmills on Nantucket before. They don't work.
From what I have heard from people who were there, the windmills did, in fact, work. If I remember the story correctly, one could go out to Bartlett farm and see the electric meters running backward! That meant that the power company was actually paying the owners for the excess power they created. A pretty good deal.

Now those old first generation turbines were loud, and when you add salt air and a lack of maintenance to such machines they will break down, as they did. Today’s wind turbines are far better engineered and have been tested in nearly every environment and when properly maintained, they run quietly and efficiently. In fact, the decibels produced by the latest generation wind turbine at 600 meters is approximately equal to that of ambient room noise.

2. We should put this wind farm further out to sea
This would be a great idea if it were not for three factors. 1. Being in the open ocean makes it far harder and therefore less cost effective to maintain wind turbines. 2. Being further away from the grid and the ratepayers make the generation of power less efficient. 3. We still do not have the engineering tools and know-how to construct deep-water towers. In short, it’s not feasible at this time to put turbines in deep water with high wave heights. The Sound, by comparison, is ideal because it is extremely shallow and is protected from deep ocean swells on all sides.

Interestingly, in the future floating wind farms, or other technologies will surely be available, but it takes some time to develop prototypes and test them in real-world conditions. See these promising (on paper at least) developments:

Click here.

Click here.

3. This farm should go on land
Also a good idea if there were 25 square miles of open space to use. New England is perhaps one of the most densely populated regions in our nation. Which is one reason Wind Power will work here – there is a need – but it also means the space in which to site them is scarce.

The National Guard has stated publicly that Otis is a bad place for such a project. They need it for training, they claim. The median on Route 6 sounds like a great idea, but is it really practical or safe for motorists to be driving past these large, possibly distracting whirling machines? I have seen no studies on this. Also, in the winter, ice does build up on rotors and chunks of ice from those blades can be thrown up to 100 meters in certain conditions, so siting them near walkways and roadways is not a good idea in colder climates. Frankly, I would love to see as many wind turbines generating as much power on land and in the ocean as possible. But they need to be in the right place. A place with access to the grid, near rate payers (but not so near that they are not safe) and situated where the winds are favorable.

4. We hear they are noisy. We worry about that.
This just isn’t the case. As I said before the latest generation of wind turbines produce the same amount of sound, at 600 meters as a computer or fridge — approximately equal to ambient room noise. No one on land will ever hear them. Few people at sea will hear them over the sound of waves and wind.

5. It will have a negative impact on tourism for Nantucket
Studies done in Australia, Scotland and Germany have all shown that tourists are more likely to be attracted to wind farms than to be repulsed by them. In Denmark, eco-tourism has become a sizeable business for many who operate boat charters to the wind farms there. Here on Nantucket, where the wind farm will have the least visual impact, and will only effect the northern, less popular beaches, the effects will be negligible or none at all. Nothing about Nantucket will change, except for two things. 1. Specs of blades will be visible from the north facing beaches on really clear days. 2. The air will be cleaner. Seems like a net gain for tourists, if you ask me.

6. Water, vibrations and sand will cause these towers to fall over
What goes up must come down, as the saying goes, but based on the engineering models I have seen, the monopile construction proposed for this project is extremely stable. Essentially, it is a thick steel open-ended tube up to 18 feet in diameter that is driven — hammered — into the sea floor to a depth of up to 90 feet. Geophysical and geotechnical surveys have been done to determine that these monopiles are suitable for this location and that they will withstand potential maximum wind, ice, earthquake and wave forces on the shoal. See section 4.1.1.3 of the DEIS for a complete description of various foundation options and a rationale for this choice.

7. The blades will ice up.
This is true. But it’s really a non-issue. Ice will collect on the blade and will be thrown from the blades when they begin to rotate. This is a normal part of the operation of an off-shore wind farm, and the GE turbines specified have been designed to operate within the climate conditions seen on Horseshoe Shoal. If they cannot, GE will repair or replace them as part of their service contract and warrantee.

8. 22,000 birds were killed by wind turbines in California
That is also true, but irrelevant to this situation. Most of those bird kills in the Altamont Pass were due to poor siting in a raptor migratory area, as well as the use of open-lattice towers which promote nesting. (pictured here: Click.) The monopile towers used by Cape Wind discourage nesting. And while there is no doubt that some birds will meet their demise as a result of the tower, this will in no way be a significant number. It might interest you to know that Over 100 million birds die each year because they fly into buildings. This may be because birds have brains the size of navy beans. In addition, seven million of our painfully stupid feathered friends were eaten by cats in Wisconsin alone last year, according the Audubon Society. So, if you have a cat, tie a bell around her neck. In all, there are a dozen man-controlled situations, from livestock feed tanks to automobiles to commercial fishing that do much more damage to the bird population than wind turbines. Including logging, strip mining and the extraction of oil and natural gas from the earth… Hmmm….

9. What about an oil spill from these things?
Both the nacelles and the service platform are designed with double-wall construction, holding tanks and catch basins which can hold 150% of the oil used. In addition, the oil used is a low-toxicity mineral oil that is not nearly as dangerous for the environment as gasoline, crude or fuel oil. Cape wind is looking at ways to use a vegetable-based oil for lubrication in the future as well.

10. Because this is such an excellent spot for wind, we should wait and not squander our resource
and…
11. The technology just doesn't work
I’m not sure how to answer these two except to say that over 6,900 GE wind turbines are in service around the world right now and they do produce clean power every single day. Will technology improve? Sure. But that’s no reason not to begin harvesting the power from wind now.

If technology and efficiency does improve, there’s no reason why the Cape Wind farm cannot be upgraded as time goes by and as profits allow. A smart businessman will always look for ways to improve efficiencies and output. That’s one of the reasons why the private sector works for this industry.

12. Nantucket sound can be like the North Sea
The North Sea is far larger and much more hostile than Nantucket Sound. (Click.) It is on average 95 meters deep. It is colder. It is windier. Still, one must admit that the Sound can be a very cold and hostile environment. It should be noted that there are plenty of wind turbines in operation in the North Sea (Click.) and if they can operate there, the Sound should pose no problem to their service either.

13. The wind turbines will create an island of sand there
The general consensus among scientist at Woods Hole as well as consultants who did geophysical surveys of the area was that scour was more of a potential issue than sand accretion. The towers are far enough apart so that they do not pose a threat as a barrier to sediment migration and the general result of the research is that after an initial impact caused by the construction process, the project would have little effect on the composition of the shoal. See section five of the DEIS for detailed info on surveys and conclusions.

14. Who is going to remove the windmills when they are no longer in use?
The developer has said publicly that they will post a decommissioning bond at the onset of construction (and not before, because, it makes no sense to tie up money in that way before necessary) which will cover the cost of dismantling the park.

As I’ve said before, distrust of developers is a healthy thing. But if there are other additional assurances beyond a public promise of a sizeable bond that are necessary I cannot think of them. I can call Cape Wind and see if they would be willing to pinky swear to it if that makes anyone happier.

15. It's a blight (I heard the word "blight" over and over)
This is blight. Click. In this instance, using “blight” to describe the proposed project is just an attempt to charge up the debate. It’s kind of like the designation of wind farm versus wind factory. To me, wind farm is more technically correct because one is harvesting power from the wind. One if not manufacturing wind with windmills. Of course I absolutely do not advocate changing the names of the following for technical accuracy:

Pitted prunes (do they have pits or not?) Jumbo shrimp (how big could they be?) Un-retouched photos (Have they been touched? Or just not touched a second time?) Fox News (ooops…)

So I say, call it what you want. It’s all in the eye of the beholder anyway. One can argue aesthetics all day if one wants. But it serves no purpose in this debate. Either you are willing to put up with the sight of them, or you are not. Just as there are people who don’t like the looks of them, there are other who think they are lovely. To each his or her own. One thing is certain, the output of the wind farm is far more aesthetically pleasing (and healthy) than that of any other power generation method except for solar.

16. It interferes with radar
This issue arose in the UK when the Ministry of Defense stopped several wind farms from going forward because the turbines, it was feared, would interfere with aviation radar operations for military installations. This problem has been fixed using software radar filtering and several of the wind projects on hold in the UK are back up and moving forward. That's air radar. Ship's radar is a different thing. The fact that these turbines show up on ship's radar mean that the radar is working!

17. Cape Cod Sound is our Grand Canyon or our Painted Desert.
This type of argument is purely emotional, and falls under the category, like the aesthetics debate, of an argument that cannot be won. One man’s Sound is another’s painted desert. Although having just visited the painted desert in the past three weeks, I would say that it is far more beautiful than Nantucket Sound, even, or especially, at sunset. In addition, I would say that there are parts of Nantucket that put Arizona to shame. The sound isn’t one of them. Still, it might be a good idea to take a look at the contestants in this beauty contest side by side…

Nantucket Sound on a nice day:

The Grand Canyon on a nice day:

The painted desert on a nice day:

18. The developers are just in it for the money and will cut and run when it suits them.
I think it would behoove those who distrust private enterprise to realize that aside from our trip to the moon in 1969 (which was developed with the help of private enterprise) the vast majority of important advancements in science, technology, transportation and communication were the direct result of private enterprise initiatives:

The Early Explorers The Wright Brothers The Union Pacific Railroad Vaccines Overnight shipping The Fax Machine The Personal Computer Cell Phones And most important, coffee commodities trading.

In this country, government usually doesn’t do this stuff, and when they do, they rely on private enterprise to do much of the heavy lifting, or they often fail miserably. Look, recently, on how a small start-up funded by a rich entrepreneur, got a reusable vehicle into space and back in a few years — a feat that took NASA spending many billions of dollars and employing hundreds of engineers (both publicly employed and privately) over a decade. And they still haven’t really done it “right.”

Many have called for a comprehensive federal regulatory guide to offshore wind development prior to any siting. Please excuse my skepticism at this idea. Personally, I would hate to have to wait for this particular administration to put forward clean energy initiatives given the depth with which they have their hands in the pockets of big oil. As I told a friend recently, asking the Bush Administration to pave the way for offshore wind development is kind of like asking a crackhead to open up an IRA.

Vilifying private enterprise for trying to kick-start offshore wind development is just plain silly. And yes, they are in it to make a profit. That’s the idea behind private enterprise. It’s a system that works. There’s a market, a need and an opportunity, and the guy with the best business plan wins.

Now I will tell you from speaking with several Cape Wind folks that most of them have backgrounds not in development but in advocacy for the environment and in cleaner energy. There is a rampant true-believer-ism in that group that one should not discount. The process is not easy. If their true goal was to bilk the government out of tax credits, I think they could have come up with a far easier plan to do that. If you talk to them, you will see that they are driven by the belief that they are doing a good thing. And that’s very reassuring.

19. If we put this wind farm here, who knows where else someone will want to put a wind farm?
Wow. That’s an excellent point. If we can put a wind farm here, they one could go anywhere there is wind and access to users and the grid. Which would be a good thing. Thanks for mentioning that, whoever you are.

20. The developer has no experience in this area.
The developer has years of experience in the area of converting polluting plants to cleaner burning gas-fired plants, so they know the business and economics of electricity generation. And they know the benefits of cleaner energy. Make no mistake, no one has experience in putting up this many wind turbines in the US. It has never been done. But that does not mean it cannot be done. In my estimation, Cape Wind has done everything right. They have met the opposition with care and respect. They have gone through proper channels by going before 14 state and federal agencies as part of the permitting process. They have exercised due diligence. So what if it has never been done? Fortune favors the bold. Just ask Charles Lindberg.

21. I'm an advocate of wind power but I'm against this plant.
I personally don’t have a great deal of tolerance for this point of view. But I understand it. Change, even change for the better, is painful. Just ask Rosa Parks. One December evening in 1955, Rosa Parks left her job in Montgomery, Alabama, to go home. Ms. Parks made the decisions to remain seated in the front of the bus instead of giving up her seat to a white person. No one had ever done this before. Probably because they feared the pain and aggravation it might cause them. Probably because, despite the fact that the segregation situation was quite onerous and unjust, changing it seemed like a process that would cause real, personal, pain. Rosa Parks was arrested because of what she did.

Thank goodness Rosa Parks got the ball going. She inspired, in 1955, a whole generation of activists to change the fundamental underpinnings of society in the South.

The Cape Wind project is the Rosa Parks of the wind movement in the US. This movement will be painful. And for those of you who are not willing to sit in the front of the bus, and face the consequences, I understand. You’re not willing to give up something you have for something that in your mind, may or may not be better. Fear is a powerful motivator.

To me, saying you are an advocate of wind power but you don’t want it here strips all of the arguments about birds and ice and mineral oil and boats and planes away. By saying this, you are essentially saying, you would welcome a wind farm anywhere that it will not have an impact, even a small one, on your life. Fine. I accept that. You are entitled to feel as you feel.

Personally, I welcome the wind farm. I don’t necessarily like the look of them, but there you have it. You have to take the good with the bad. And when I say good, I mean the public good, not just the good as it relates to me and my family.

I will say again what I said the other night into the microphone. The energy policy path we are on right now is simply not sustainable. Our resources are being used up as our energy needs increase. In the meantime we are literally poisoning ourselves. The stuff that goes into the air is not just breathed in, it is in the food we eat and the water we drink. One needs to take a look at these windmills and then think about a future without them and take a stand. This project will not solve our energy problems, but it is a good first step.

Imagine if Rosa Parks had not taken that first step in 1955. Where would we be right now? Facing riots in Watts? Who knows?

All I know is this: sometimes it hurts to do the right thing. But one has to do it. That’s how I feel about the Cape Wind Project. And it only took six pages to say so.