We will continue to save nonrenewable energy sources as we depend more on renewable energy.
The “rush” to build wind farms is often compared to the past rush to build dams. However, I believe comparing the environmental impacts of wind power to dams is like comparing apples to oranges.
Furthermore, it is necessary to consider the time and place where winds farms have been constructed in the past, since previous decisions have not been wise. However, today we have environmental assessments (EAs) and watchdog organizations that place a higher level of scrutiny on construction projects than was available in the past.
A lot of dam construction occurred before the environmental movement, before the existence of EAs, and watchdog groups. No doubt, both dams and wind turbines have the potential to kill animals that encounter them. For example, a big concern with dams, are their impacts on fish such as salmon and American eels, but with wind farms it is birds and bats.
However, the grave and significant impact on bird populations from the spinning of wind turbines seems to be myth. Denmark is using “thermal animal detection systems” to monitor offshore wind farms for sea bird collisions. Results show seabirds avoid the turbines. Furthermore, other anthropogenic activities cause much greater bird mortalities than wind turbines. Nonetheless, the precautionary approach should be taken in areas where endangered or critically endangered bird populations occur, since any interaction with wind turbines—no matter how infrequent—may pose a significant risk for the survival of a population. A population can be so endangered that any taking of an individual would be too detrimental to the population as a whole.
I believe the pros and cons of any project should be compared and weighed objectively. I believe the benefits from wind power far outweigh the negatives, since many governments and organizations are using successful mitigatory and monitoring programs. Furthermore, given the level of attention and scrutiny, Cape Wind will not be haphazardly randomly placed junk in the ocean. Just like you and me, Cape Wind wants to make a profit and watchdog organizations want the turbines placed appropriately, so certainly a lot of attention has already been given to the placement and quality of these turbines.
Furthermore, Cape Wind represents technology that provides benefit away from the detriment of dirty energy sources. Coal factories translate to excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and mercury in the landscape and aquatic environments, and coal-powered plants are the largest producer of mercury. In addition, it is possible to rely on wind power to provide electricity for a large number of homes, and Denmark has plans to have 50% of their power come from wind. Ultimately and for many reasons, wind turbines are much more benign than coal power plants. True, the metal to construct the turbines will have to be constructed from the mechanization process, but this will be negated by the longevity of the project in addition to the benefits of clean power. Furthermore, we must use our oil supplies wisely to build the renewable infrastructure and allow for the continuation of a stable society that further produces new and improved technologies.
NIMBYism and the perceived impacts on marine life (and lack of hard evidence) are not significant enough when comparing how dirty power sources currently impact our backyards and marine organisms. It is scary to think about a world that has starved itself of energy with no way of producing more energy and new technologies. Ultimately, the backlash will be against nature before destroying ourselves. The world should be viewed as an island where resources are limited, so we must take the steps through negotiation to figure out the best solutions. Otherwise, we could be another Easter Island, just on a much larger scale.
On the Net: Wind Power and Birds Consultants: Curry & Kerlinger, LLC
—
Photo source for attribution. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse me or my work and their image is protected under an attribution license.
As someone who lives on the Cape and has followed this project since its conception, it is refreshing to read a thought out argument for this project. However, I disagree with you, and believe that Cape Wind is an ill-conceived project that violates the public trust and will do far more damage then the limited liability developers would have the public believe.
You are right, the developer has given a lot of thought to this project, and he is proposing to place it in an area where he stands to make the most profit. Admittedly, he is a good businessman. But telling the taxpaying residents of Massachusetts that Horseshoe Shoal is the only place for this project is wrong, and presents us with a false choice. Other alternative sites have been identifies, yet Jim Gordon wants to place this project in the heart of Nantucket Sound.
It is important to note that Nantucket Sound has twice been nominated as a national marine ocean sanctuary, and was formally the Cape and Islands Ocean sanctuary – protected from utility scale developments just like Cape Wind. In 1986 the Federal government took back waters that states had claimed as their own outside of the three-mile state limit. This was the case for in Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, and other states in the northeast.
Fast forward to 2007 – Nantucket Sound remains the only place in the continental United States where protected state waters surround unprotected federal waters. This presents a management problem for state and federal authorities because Nantucket Sound isn’t the outer continental shelf, but it is being managed as such. 3 million people pass through the Sound on ferry each year, thousands boat recreationally in these waters. Run your 25 foot boat 30 miles south of Yarmouth, and you’ll hit Nantucket. Run your 25 foot boat 30 miles west of North Carolina, and you are alone in the Atlantic. Each area is fundamentally different, and should be treated as such, Nantucket Sound is not the place for an offshore wind farm because it isn’t even offshore – it is in the heart of coastal waters.
In your biography, you note your work with NMFS. I’m not sure what size boats you were out on, or if you have been fishing aboard any vessels on Nantucket Sound, but the fishermen of Nantucket Sound are inshore fishermen who have it tough enough without a giant power plant taking up 25 square miles of essential fish habitat. 67.7 miles of cable, trenches 5 feet deep, 6 feet wide. The shallowest part of Horseshoe Shoal is a half foot – the smallest barge required for this project is 80 feet, and the developer claims that no dredging is required for the construction of this project! Summer flounder populations will be take a serious hit, and commercial fishermen will suffer as they will be forced to fish elsewhere. In Denmark, the government has banned all commercial fishing activities from fishing inside the turbine array.
Cape Cod was found hundreds of years ago by the Basques searching for Cod. The heritage of the landmass is bound to the local waters. Our anthropogenic activities – namely fishing – tie us to the Place that is Nantucket Sound. Nantucket Sound, like Yellowstone, or forests in Madagascar give special meaning to our lives – these Places define who we are and what we aspire to be. A project of this size and scale will undoubtedly alter the cultural heritage that defines generations of people born and raised in this Place. You might call it NIMBYism, but it should be referred to as the environmental value of Place.
Cape Wind can tout how it will curb greenhouse gas emissions, but the reality is that no power plants will come off-line, and the Cape’s dirtiest power plant will burn more dirty fuel to increase production for when the wind isn’t blowing.
I’m not against wind power, and I think Massachusetts needs to be a leader in the industry, especially with the current demand for power in the New England grid. However, Nantucket Sound is not the right place to put 130 440’ turbines and a transformer substation. We need to approach climate change responsibly, and navigate a divisive dilemma that is dividing environmentalists.