Cape Wind on track

Draft EIS for Nantucket Sound wind project is positive

Posted by Erik Hoffner (Guest Contributor) at 12:41 PM on 14 Jan 2008

Read more about: energy | wind power | Massachusetts

The Mineral Management Service's Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Cape Wind project is just out, and so far looks very positive, finding no environmental reasons to halt the project as it is envisioned.

On a conference call this afternoon, a spokesman for Cape Wind stated that "any rational observer reading this report" will deduce that this project will not produce adverse environmental impacts. The devil is in the details, of course, and he acknowledged that this has been a "long hard road" but that there is a sense of accomplishment at Cape Wind that the project has helped catalyze a national conversation on the topic of offshore wind (which he notes has a potential of 900,000 MW ... a very significant renewable energy resource -- not that his company feels we should go about developing it all, he noted).

He went on to say that the nation's first offshore wind farm must be subject to rigorous review, but that the positive DEIS now adds to the weight of evidence from previous positive findings of various state studies and the Army Corps of Engineers. Cape Wind anticipates this to be the final year of permitting, with further public hearings in March. He called it the "right project in the right place at the right time," and if all goes smoothly, the earliest beginning of construction will be 2010 or 2011, coming online with power in 2011 at the earliest.

And in a nod to the Gristmill, one would like to think, he went out of his way to note that offshore wind would be great for powering up plug-in hybrids at night.

For story: Cape Wind on track
35 Comments | Post a Comment

Cape wind

The Cape is abn expensive place to build a house, but that is nothing compared to how much how much off shore wind towers cost to build there. Last I heard it was running something like $1.7 billion for under half a GW of nominal power. Figure the real power output is not going to average more that 150 MWs. I am probably being generous here. Lets see that gives us $11 billion + per GW. How many Nuclear power plants can we build with that? Art least3. Figure 4 GW of reliable power for the same price that will get you 150 Mw of good old clean renewable energy. And exactly why do the Greens call nuclear power expensive?

Charles Barton

by Charles Barton at 1:40 PM on 14 Jan 2008

expense

If you think you could build 3 nukes with the cash needed to capitalize Cape Wind, I've got a dwarf star to sell you.

Anyhow, just the amount of energy it takes to build a nuke is mind blowing, so factor that into your equation, and add the timeline problem. A windfarm like this one could be up and running in 3 years time. By the time your 3 nukes are built, it's 2030, and the need for their supposed "carbon free" power is gone because the climate is already cooked.

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

by Erik Hoffner at 2:20 PM on 14 Jan 2008
[ Parent ]

Just on a technical note...

...this will not be the first offshore wind farm in the U.S. One is already under construction off the coast of Galveston, Texas. However, it may be the first one built in federal waters, since Texas has the rights up to 10 miles off the coast, while most other states only have rights up to 3 miles out (the Cape Wind project is 4.7 miles out).

This is one of the reasons why the wind project in Texas got passed so quickly.

by Tasermons Partner at 3:03 PM on 14 Jan 2008

report available

The impact statement is now available on the MMS site:

http://www.mms.gov/offshore/RenewableEnergy/CapeWind.htm

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

by Erik Hoffner at 3:09 PM on 14 Jan 2008

The real cost of nuclear power

To only consider the startup capital required in calculating expense is shortsighted and irresponsible. The cost of nuclear energy is much more than the cost of building a nuclear power plant. Other factors need to be accounted for. For instance, the cost to society of producing radioactive waste with a half-life of thousands of years, discharging thermal pollution into our fragile stream ecosystems, and creating the risk for disastrous meltdown and contamination need to be taken into account. When everything is accounted for and risk assessment is quantified, nuclear power turns out to be much more expensive than at first glance.

by Quinn at 3:47 PM on 14 Jan 2008
[ Parent ]

Maintenance costs...

...I imagine the costs to maintain and upgrade nuclear power plants also probably far exceed that of wind farms, even given the fact that the farms typically need to be undergo a total upgrade/replacement 'bout every 20 to 30 years or so.

by Tasermons Partner at 3:57 PM on 14 Jan 2008

Costs

Actually maintenance of off shore wind farms is quite expensive, and fuel and operating costs of reactors is low. Plus reactors last 60 years verses 20 years for wind towers. Also there are more fatal accidents with wind. Base power wind can never overcome its original cost disadvantage to nuclear.

Charles Barton

by Charles Barton at 5:22 PM on 14 Jan 2008

Fact Check

A) According to Jim Gordon, the CEO of Cape Wind Associates, the project is expected to cost $1.2 billion. Not $1.7 billion. It's expensive, but then it's also the first one of its kind in the US (the project off Galveston, TX is still in the testing phase, though there's a good chance it'll go up before Cape Wind). In a few years, once we have a legitimate offshore wind industry in this country, the costs will come down just like they did in Europe.

B) Cape Wind is financed entirely by private investors (minus the 1.9 cents/KwH production tax credit). The economics clearly work out or they wouldn't be moving with the project in the first place. Compare this to nuclear. It's a mature industry and, even so, we stopped building reactors in this country when the government stopped offering them low interest loans. The market refuses to touch nuclear without a government safety net.

C) There has been one fatality in the history of modern wind power. It was an engineer out in the Pacific Northwest last year. Remind me how many people died in Chernobyl? I'm not saying that's likely to happen, but let's not spin the facts here.

We should all be happy this industry is finally making some headway. It's worked in Europe to the point that England and Denmark are each shooting to produce 50% of their electricity with mostly offshore wind. It's high time that we start taking some initiative ourselves.

by Syjel at 5:41 PM on 14 Jan 2008

OK let 'er rip

The Cape Wind has been litigated and may be litigated yet again. I suppose it's a good deal in the name of "feel good" offshore wind farms.

All I ask is that if the project fails, all the equipment and gear be removed. All of it.

Onward through the fog

by Sam Wells at 6:29 PM on 14 Jan 2008

offshore cleanup

Removal at the end of life is usually the requirement for offshore installations of any kind.

Of course if it is some oil or gas production platform in the Gulf a sweetheart "rigs to reefs" deal is arranged, in which most removal costs are avoided and an opportunity for corporate greenwashing is provided.

And yeah, I feel good about nearly carbon-free power production displacing expensive coal.

by In the belly at 6:50 PM on 14 Jan 2008

The EIS...

...actually addressed the dismantiling of the towers, their supports, and associated procedures. I didn't expect that they would do so, but surprisingly, they did.

Charles, what 'bout the cost of mining and transport for the nuclear fuel? How expensive is that generally?

by Tasermons Partner at 7:10 PM on 14 Jan 2008

nuclear fuel

Right, 'Partner. And I've read that the filthiest coal plant in the US runs all day every day (in Tennessee is it?) just to enrich or reprocess uranium for reactors. Will have to see if I can track that down and verify. But if true, that adds a whole other enormous carbon portfolio to nukes.

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

by Erik Hoffner at 6:57 AM on 15 Jan 2008
[ Parent ]

Float 'em

Next time around use floating wind. Far less litigation and NIMBYism. And a lot cheaper, no difficult and expensive underwater construction and crane work to assemble wind machines out on the ocean. Floating wind is assembled in drydock and towed out to sea where it is anchored in place.

Decommisioning nukes produces contamination that concentrates in the fatty areas near human reproductive organs, mutating DNA. The first nuclear reactor to be decommisioned lies in an unlined trench in a leaking landfill in South Carolina.

For the real cost of nukes check this nuclear industry publication.

http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2047917

It explains why investors are leery of nuclear power. And that is with taxpayers picking up the tab for catastrophe insurance, waste entombment, and contamination of groundwater.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 8:00 AM on 15 Jan 2008

The Alliance weighs in

The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound has a statement on their website now about the DEIS. It appears that they've decided to attack the report, or at least to say it's wrong on the environmental impacts, that they're worse than 'negligible.' But moreso, their strategy seems to be turning away from the ecological impacts to economic ones (and safety, too, though this issue has seemed dead for a while now after other reviews found no meaningful safety issues for marine or air navigation).

Here's how the statement begins:

"Based on a preliminary review, MMS has missed the mark in at least two key areas. While MMS has acknowledged negative impacts to birds, fisheries, and threatened and endangered species, the report neglects to adequately address key safety and cost issues that would unfairly burden the people of Cape Cod, Nantucket, and Martha's Vineyard."

Read the full statement here: (pdf)

http://www.saveoursound.org/site/DocServer/DEIS_Backgroun ...

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

by Erik Hoffner at 9:54 AM on 15 Jan 2008

Fact Check revisited

Syjel 1. the $1.7 figure was recently reported in the New York Times, and in fact it well may be low since the costs of steel, concrete, and wind generators and off shore construction are rising rapidly. You ought to note that Long Island power pulled the plug on an offshore wind farm last year when the price reached eight hundred million for a 140 MW facility. But even if we accept the $1.2 billion figure that is still a lot of money to pay for the amount of power they are getting. The capitol costs are going to run at least $8.00 per KW or real world electricity. Even the highest estimate of the cost of nuclear power comes in for less, and you can count on a reactor 24 hours a day.

Wind power extremely heavily subsidized, far more so than nuclear power. Indeed, wind power is a corporate welfare scheme for rich investors.
I think if you will carefully check, you will find that there have been 13 deaths from wind power associated accidents.

Charles Barton

by Charles Barton at 10:29 AM on 15 Jan 2008

Windpower has something to do with carbon?

Erik Hoffner wrote: A windfarm like this one could be up and running in 3 years time. By the time your 3 nukes are built, it's 2030, and the need for their supposed "carbon free" power is gone because the climate is already cooked.

What might windpower have to do with either carbon-production or climate-crises?

by Nucbuddy at 7:12 PM on 15 Jan 2008
[ Parent ]

Floating wind - it was amazingly cheap

Amazingdrx wrote: floating wind [...] a lot cheaper

When you make statements like these, could you please show your figures and their sources? Thank you in advance.

Does Denmark employ floating wind? If not, why not? If Denmark does not employ floating wind, would you consider that peculiar in light of your a lot cheaper claim?

Amazingdrx wrote: Floating wind is assembled in drydock and towed out to sea

Where has that ever occurred?

by Nucbuddy at 7:22 PM on 15 Jan 2008
[ Parent ]

20-year-old offshore windfarms - where are they?

Tasermons Partner wrote: farms typically need to be undergo a total upgrade/replacement 'bout every 20 to 30 years or so.

Could you point to even a single example of a 20-year-old offshore windfarm?

by Nucbuddy at 7:27 PM on 15 Jan 2008
[ Parent ]

Subsidies and substitutions...

Wind power extremely heavily subsidized, far more so than nuclear power. Indeed, wind power is a corporate welfare scheme for rich investors.

Um...Charles, last I checked, nuclear was heavily subsidized as well, and many breaks and incentives are offered durin' the construction and start-up phases, which are the most expensive. Without subsidies, most of the proposed nuclear power projects for the U.S. would probably be scrapped pretty quickly.

What might windpower have to do with either carbon-production or climate-crises?

If enough power is derived from wind and other clean renewables, then there wouldn't be a need to construct new power plants which employ "traditional" methods such as gas and coal. If we can produce enough renewable energy and enough money becomes invested in the process, then it may be possible to eventually replace most, and maybe all, of our energy sources with renewables.

Thus, our CO2 ouput would be greatly reduced. The quicker the energy is substituted, the greater the amount of C02 prevented from release. Since wind power can be established in certain locations fairly quickly, it has the opportunity to "mitigate" CO2 and other GHG releases fairly quickly.

by Tasermons Partner at 7:43 PM on 15 Jan 2008

Lifespans...

farms typically need to be undergo a total upgrade/replacement 'bout every 20 to 30 years or so.

Read carefully. I didn't say offshore farms, I said wind farms (as in general). Most onshore wind farms have a typical lifespan of 20 to 30 years. That is to say, after 20 to 30 years, most of the windmills are generally replaced with new ones, partly due to new technology that increases efficieny, and partly due to the fact that older windmills break down to the point that it's cheaper to get new ones as opposed to maintainin' older ones.

Most reasearch predicts that offshore wind farms will probably have slightly longer lifespans that their onshore cousins (see the EIS), since there's less turbulence over the water (even when taking into account the effect of sea-salt on the windmills).

by Tasermons Partner at 7:52 PM on 15 Jan 2008

Why does windpower cause so many fatalities?

Charles Barton wrote: I think if you will carefully check, you will find that there have been 13 deaths from wind power associated accidents.

There have been far more than 13 windpower fatalities, Charles. Windpower accidents like this one occur continuously.

Helicopter goes down in central NY, 4 suffer minor injuries
Associated Press - January 15, 2008 6:35 PM ET
FENNER, N.Y. (AP) - Four people suffered minor injuries when their company helicopter crashed near a windmill in central New York.
A state trooper says all four aboard the helicopter were able to walk away from the aircraft after it made what appears to have been a hard landing near a windmill farm in Fenner in Madison County.
The private helicopter was owned by Adkins Aviation of Cornelius (North Carolina), although company officials could not immediately confirm it was 1 of their aircraft. Initially, state police believed the helicopter was owned by Canastota Windpower, which owns the 20-turbine wind farm located 30 miles east of Syracuse.
The helicopter crew was doing routine maintenance when the pilot became disoriented in the heavy fog. It's not known what caused the accident.

The principal reason that windpower involves such an extremely high number of per-kWh accidents, injuries and fatalities is that it taps a relatively diffuse power source. The safest power sources, such as coal and especially nuclear, have high energy density -- again, particularly nuclear has the highest energy density. The most-dangerous power sources, such as windpower, hydro and solar, have low energy density.

by Nucbuddy at 7:54 PM on 15 Jan 2008
[ Parent ]

Hmm, I don't know...

Nucbuddy, from my perspective, that article cited doesn't really count as a wind-power related accident. They don't know what caused the accident, only that it happened in fog. If it had been caused by a collision with the windmill, they would've noticed damage, so it probably wasn't that. The fact that they were doin' maintenance at the time was merely a coincidence. It could've just as easily been a helicopter that was owned by someone else doin' something else that just so happened to crash near (but not into) a windmill.

It was most likely a mechanical failure with the helicopter, I'd think. Wanna guess at how many oil-workers have died on helicopters that were transporting 'em out to rigs...I bet it's in the hundreds, easy (my mom's now deceased boyfriend was one).

And I personally wouldn't call coal and nuclear "the safest" power sources. I'm not sure 'bout nuclear in the United States, but I'm fairly certain that more people have died in accidents at coal plants than in all clean renewable sources combined. And I'm also fairly certain people who work at nuclear and coal plants have instances of cancer and other medical problems than the general population.

by Tasermons Partner at 8:08 PM on 15 Jan 2008

Uranium costs about $2 per lifetime watt

I see some rather naive questions about the "real cost" of nuclear energy and the enrichment and transport costs of nuclear fuel. The real energy, environmental, and money cost is, to fossil fuel interests, threateningly low, and there is no intergenerational waste legacy with nuclear energy. (As I have said here before, the CO2 legacy of past fossil fuel-fired electricity production can be made harmless for a bearable extra cost, but it will be extra.)

The cost of mining and transport for the nuclear fuel are respectively $2,000 per electrical kilowatt, if said kilowatt is maintained for 48 years -- a 60-year plant lifetime times 0.8 load factor -- and ~0. Transport costs are infinitesimal because uranium for 48 electrical kilowatt-years, for CANDU systems like the ones powering this computer, weighs 7.77 grams. For these systems, the enrichment cost is zero.

How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?

by GRLCowan at 8:29 PM on 15 Jan 2008

Wait...what?...

and there is no intergenerational waste legacy with nuclear energy.

That doesn't sound right to me (perhaps I'm readin' it wrong?). Doesn't the waste from nuclear energy last for thousands of years (in terms of radioactivity)? The waste can be contained, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The waste still lasts for generations, correct?

by Tasermons Partner at 8:35 PM on 15 Jan 2008

Dumping out the hamster cage in the back 40

... after, of course, first transferring the hamsters to their other cage.

Doesn't the waste from nuclear energy last for thousands of years (in terms of radioactivity)? The waste can be contained, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist...

It exists, but this fact doesn't have the meaning that fossil fuel lobbyists commonly ascribe to it.

The right way to look at it is this: our year-2108 descendants will inherit lands in which, buried about a kilometre deep, are 250 billion watts of radioactivity. This may include, halfway down or a little further, our so-called radioactive legacy to them, now approaching 0.3 billion year-2108 watts, in sturdy containers. The rest will be natural; it's there now.

Pretending the man-made part matters is a prime example of the fallacy of the genuine but insignificant cause, aka straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?

by GRLCowan at 8:52 PM on 15 Jan 2008
[ Parent ]

Oops

buried about a kilometre deep

I meant, buried at depths ranging from zero to 1 km.

by GRLCowan at 8:55 PM on 15 Jan 2008

Norsk Hydro

Norsk Hydro is testing their floating wind machine now.

My contention that cost is lower than offshore wind that is affixed to the bottom and constructed at sea (like Cape Wind)is based on the nature of the design. Data will be forthcoming as the tests are completed.

Underwater construction is very expensive and so is crane wind machine assembley at sea. Disturbance of the seabed raises eco concerns. Locating machines in shallow water visible from shore raises NIMBY concerns and pushes expensive litigation.

Mass assembley in dry docks, like the techniques used with the Liberty Ships, and modern ship building is much less expensive. Norsk Hydro is using technolgy developed for offshore drilling rigs.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 9:43 PM on 15 Jan 2008

Coal vs. wind-hydro-solar, fatalities

Tasermons Partner wrote: more people have died in accidents at coal plants than in all [epithet deleted] [epithet deleted] sources combined.

Please scroll to the bottom of this link:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html

Immediate fatalities 1970-92 per TWy electricity:

Coal - 342 workers
Natural gas - 85 workers & public
Hydro - 883 public
Nuclear - 8 workers

GRLCowan commented here in March 2007 on coal vs. wind vs. nuke fatality-rates. I suspect that that is not the full story -- but it represents a start.

by Nucbuddy at 2:50 AM on 16 Jan 2008
[ Parent ]

nukes not on the table

Interesting dialogue, but this isn't about how many fatalities are caused by wind turbines or whether a new nuke plant would be more economical or acceptable to the residents of SE Massachusetts (it wouldn't). But Cape Wind itself enjoys a very high public opinion, even in the proposal's back yard: from August 07:

Poll shows 84% in state back 130-turbines:

http://ledger.southofboston.com/articles/2007/08/16/busin ...

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

by Erik Hoffner at 7:01 AM on 16 Jan 2008
[ Parent ]

The energy to build a nuclear powerplant

Erik Hoffner wrote: just the amount of energy it takes to build a nuke is mind blowing

How much energy does it take to build a nuke, Erik?

by Nucbuddy at 8:00 AM on 16 Jan 2008
[ Parent ]

Ah...didn't think of hydro...

Immediate fatalities 1970-92 per TWy electricity:

Coal - 342 workers
Natural gas - 85 workers & public
Hydro - 883 public
Nuclear - 8 workers

Fair 'nough...though I personally don't classify most hydro as "clean renewables" personally, I imagine the industry as a whole probably does.

It says public and not workers though, which makes me think it's the result of some dam failures that resulted in flooding. However, I'm not aware of any dam that actually used hydro power for electricity as failing recently. I skimmed that link, but couldn't find any more info. Do ya know which incidents those are, just putta curiosity?

by Tasermons Partner at 10:13 AM on 16 Jan 2008

Dam-failures lists

http://www.dha.lnec.pt/nti/english/studies/FLOOD_RISK/tex ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dam_failures

by Nucbuddy at 10:37 AM on 16 Jan 2008
[ Parent ]

Odd...

...Accordin' to those lists, the only power-generating hydro dam to fail in America since 1975 (the report was from 70 to 95) was the Teton Dam, and that killed less than 20 people.

Where do they get 883 American deaths from?

by Tasermons Partner at 12:05 PM on 16 Jan 2008

Dam failures and risks, American and otherwise

Tasermons Partner wrote: Where do they get 883 American deaths from?

It is not 883 fatalities. It is 4000. Did you read the link? What does "per TWy" mean? What does the "W" in WNA stand for?

Tasermons Partner wrote: the only power-generating hydro dam to fail in America since 1975 (the report was from 70 to 95) was the Teton Dam

1972. 125 fatalities.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Creek_Flood

1977. 39 fatalities.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Barnes_Dam

1982. 3 fatalities.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawn_Lake_Dam

I found a good blog-post, from just last month (and with a lot of great photos), on dam failures. Besides historic dam failures, it talks about dams as potential terrorist- or warfare- targets.

Today there are hundreds of potential terrorist targets in the form of dams located in densely populated areas. Attacks and even suicide-attacks from the dam itself or from a watercraft would eliminate the need for aircraft. All that would be required would be a relatively small amount of explosives dropped on the back of a dam in a water tight container. Major dams, especially iconic ones like the Hoover dam have security measures and are monitored, but many smaller structures are entirely unguarded and have only the most minimal security.

by Nucbuddy at 7:02 PM on 16 Jan 2008
[ Parent ]

That's not very fair...

First off, two of those three links were to dam failures that didn't provide electricity. They shouldn't include figures from dam failures in fatalities from renewable energy if the dams didn't actually produce energy.

Second, those figures also exclude deaths during the construction of the plants, and also exclude deaths associated from mining/drilling. for the plants fuel sources.

And though dams probably would make good terrorist targets, one of the advantages to solar and wind systems is that the distribution allows for part of the system (such as a few windmills or panels) to fail, but not have much effect on the overall power system. With plants confined to generally singular locations and systems (like coal and gas), it's easier for a failure to effect the entire facility/system.

by Tasermons Partner at 10:10 PM on 16 Jan 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.