| Cape Wind | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Country | United States |
| Location | Horseshoe Shoal, Nantucket Sound, Massachusetts |
| Coordinates | |
| Status | Approved |
| Owner(s) | Cape Wind Associates |
| Turbine information | |
| Turbines | 130 x 3.6 MW[1] |
| Manufacturer(s) | Siemens Wind Power |
| Hub height | 285 ft (87 m) |
| Rotor diameter | 364 ft (111 m) |
| Surface area | 24 sq mi (62 km2) |
| Power generation information | |
| Maximum capacity | 454 MW |
The Cape Wind Project is an approved[2][3] offshore wind farm, on Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound off Cape Cod in the U.S. state of Massachusetts, proposed by a private developer, Cape Wind Associates, the brainchild of Jim Gordon and a Limited Liability Company (LLC) set up as a joint business venture between Energy Management Inc. and Wind Management LLP.[4] Great controversy[5] has surrounded the project, and if it moves forward on schedule, the wind farm may[6] become the first offshore wind energy project in United States coastal waters. The project has been fought by the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, formed in 2001 to oppose the proposal because it will construct 400-foot (120 m) tall wind turbines in the middle of environmentally sensitive Nantucket Sound.[7] The project is expected to cost $2.5 billion.[8]
Contents |
The footprint for the proposed project covers 24 square miles (62 km2), and would be 4.8 miles (7.7 km) from Mashpee, on the south coast of Cape Cod, and 15.8 miles (25.4 km) from the island town of Nantucket. The project envisions 130 horizontal-axis wind turbines, each having a hub height of 285 feet (87 m). The blade diameter is 364 feet (111 m), with the lowest blade tip height at 75 feet (23 m) and the top blade tip height at 440 feet (130 m).[9] The turbines would be sited between 4–11 miles offshore depending on the shoreline. At peak generation, the turbines will generate 454 megawatts (MW)[1] of renewable electricity. This is enough to meet the needs of 420,000 homes. The project is expected to produce an average of 170 megawatts of electricity, about 75% of the average electricity demand for Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard, and Nantucket island combined.[10] It could offset close to a million tons of carbon dioxide every year and should produce enough electricity to offset the consumption of 113 million US gallons (430,000 m3) of oil annually.[11]
Currently 45% of the Cape region's electricity comes from the nearby Canal Power Plant in Sandwich, which burns bunker oil and natural gas.[12][13] The Cape Wind proposal is distinct in that it would directly offset petroleum combustion, unlike most of the United States where electrical power generation from oil is rare and coal power is more common.
Additionally, this project would decrease the amount of oil shipped to the Cape Cod power plant; fuel for this plant has been part of two major oil spills. The first was on December 15, 1976, when the tanker Argo Merchant ran aground southeast of Nantucket Island, Massachusetts spilling 7.7 million US gallons (29,000 m3) of oil.[14] The second occurred in April 2003, when a Bouchard Company barge carrying oil for the Mirant Canal Generating Plant ran aground spilling 98,000 US gallons (370,000 L) of oil, which killed 450 birds and shut down 100,000 acres (400 km²) of shell fishing beds.[15]
Because the proposed turbines are more than three miles (5 km) from shore, they are subject to federal jurisdiction. However, near-shore infrastructure including roads and power cables make the project subject to state and local jurisdiction as well.[16] All necessary state and local pre-construction approvals were obtained by 2009. Major federal approvals were obtained May 17, 2010, with lease details, and construction and operation permits to be granted as the project proceeds.
Cape Wind must now finance and build its project, and find customers for the electricity it will produce. On May 7, 2010, Cape Wind announced a power purchase agreement with National Grid to sell half the project's output (i.e. about 750 million kW·h/year) for an initial price of 20.7 ¢/kW·h (later agreed at 18.7¢[17]) — a price more than twice current retail rates. The deal is subject to approval by the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities.[18]
The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound filed a lawsuit in June 2010, claiming the federal approvals violated the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and National Environmental Policy Act.[19]
At the state and local level, according to the Boston Globe, Cape Wind needed approval from the Cape Cod Commission; "a Chapter 91 license from the Department of Environmental Protection; a water quality certification from the state DEP; access permits from the Massachusetts Highway Department for work along state highways; a license from the Executive Office of Transportation for a railway crossing; orders of conditions from the Yarmouth and Barnstable Conservation Commissions; and road opening permits from Yarmouth and Barnstable."[20]
On May 11, 2005, the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board (MEFSB) approved the application to build the wind farm. Opponents appealed the decision and on December 18, 2006 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld the decision.[21]
In March 2007, the project received approval from Ian Bowles, the Massachusetts Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs, as required by the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA).[16] In October 2007, the Cape Cod Commission declined to approve Cape Wind without further study of the impact by the developers.[22]
On June 20, 2008, the Barnstable Superior Court dismissed four of five counts against the MEPA certificate that had been filed by opposition groups and the Town of Barnstable. The fifth count was not considered ripe for a ruling since the matter was still pending before a state agency.[23]
On May 22, 2009, the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board[24][25] issued a "Super Permit" to Cape Wind, overriding the Cape Cod Commission and obviating the need for any further state and local approvals.[26]
On August 31, 2010, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 4-2 that the state has the power to overrule community opposition and grant the Cape Wind project a suite of local permits it needs to start construction.[27]
At the federal level, Cape Wind originally applied for a permit in 2001 under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 with the US Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corps eventually presented a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In a public comment period, many Federal agencies, local governments, and community groups found the draft EIS to have deficiencies. Due to passage of the 2005 Energy Bill, the regulatory authority for off-shore energy projects has been transferred from the Army Corps to the Minerals Management Service (MMS) within the Department of the Interior. Whereas Cape Wind had expected to obtain approval quickly from the Army Corps, this transfer of authority to the MMS delayed the project.
The MMS issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in January 2008, and a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) in January 2009.[28]
On January 4, 2010, U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar called a meeting of principal parties to resolve remaining issues after the National Park Service ruled that Nantucket Sound is eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places because of its cultural and spiritual significance to two Native American tribes. “After several years of review, it is now time to move the Cape Wind proposal to a final decision point. That is why I am gathering the principal parties together next week to consider the findings of the Keeper and to discuss how we might find a common-sense agreement on actions that could be taken to minimize and mitigate Cape Wind’s potential impacts on historic and cultural resources. I am hopeful that an agreement among the parties can be reached by March 1. If an agreement among the parties can’t be reached, I will be prepared to take the steps necessary to bring the permit process to conclusion. The public, the parties, and the permit applicants deserve certainty and resolution.”[29]
On March 22, 2010, a hearing was held before the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Proponents and opponents of the plan delivered testimony during the hearing. The Council was to deliver their recommendations to Interior Secretary Salazar no later than April 14, 2010.[30]
On April 28, 2010, at a news conference in the Massachusetts Statehouse alongside governor Deval Patrick, a supporter of the project, Secretary Salazar announced "I am approving the Cape Wind project." The Preferred Alternative of Horseshoe Shoal was selected by the Record of Decision.[31][32]
The FAA cleared the construction of the wind farm on May 17, 2010 after raising concerns that the windmills could cause interference with radar system at nearby Otis Air Force Base. Cape Wind agreed to fix the base's current system to ensure that it would not be affected by the wind farm.[33]
On October 6, 2010, Interior Secretary Salazar announced that a 28-year lease had been signed, which will cost Cape Wind an annual fee of $88,278 before construction, and a 2 to 7 percent variable operating fee during production, based on revenue from selling the energy.[34][35]
On November 22, 2010, a 15 year Power Purchase Agreement between Cape Wind and the National Grid was signed for 50% of the electricity, at a price of 18.7¢/kWh,[36] adding $1.50 a month to the electricity bill of an average home.[37]
On January 7, 2011, Cape Wind announced that it had received permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.[38]
On April 19, 2011, the Associated Press announced that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement granted its necessary approval for the project.
In Summer 2011, the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) filed a lawsuit against the federal government for allowing Cape Wind to move forward.[39] Contradicting the Aquinnahs, the Pocasset Wampanoag Tribe had previously expressed support for the project.[40]
The controversy surrounding Cape Wind has been focused on its proposed location in Nantucket Sound.[41] Many opponents of the project, including The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, are in favor of green, sustainable energy - just not in the location proposed by Cape Wind. It is considered by some to be the right idea, in the wrong location.[41] Because Cape Wind is positioning its project as a potential ecotourism destination, it has been criticized for disguising (or greenwashing) its industrial aspects.[42]
Supporters of the project, led by the non-profit grassroots organization Clean Power Now,[43] cite wind's ability to displace oil and gas consumption with clean, locally produced energy and claim the project is the best option for much needed new generating capacity in the region. It would supply 75% of the average electrical needs of Cape Cod and the Islands. The Massachusetts Audubon Society conditionally endorsed the project in March 2006 as safe for birds, but asked for further studies.[44]
Year round and summer residents expressed concerns over the location of the project: some claim that the project will ruin scenic views from people's private property as well as views from public property such as beaches (as the turbines will be only 4.8 miles from the shore [45]) and therefore decrease property values, ruining popular areas for yachting, and other environmental problems. The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound argue that Nantucket Sound is known worldwide for its wildlife and natural beauty.[46] and that the proposed wind farm would be located near shipping lanes. The Massachusetts Fishermen's Partnership (a combination of several fishing organizations) has also spoken out against the project. Local fishermen are also nearly unanimously against the project, citing the fact that for many of them, up to 60% of their annual income comes from catch caught on Horseshoe Shoals, which they claim would disappear and would have to be replaced by steaming to fishing grounds farther out to sea if the project is completed.[47] Some who oppose the project are concerned about the corporate privatization of public property, referring to Cape Wind as "the right project in the wrong place." Other opponents include some prominent individuals who normally support sustainable energy.
Walter Cronkite was the subject of controversy as well when he originally came out against the wind farm but then changed his opinion.[48] Other opponents have included Sen. Ted Kennedy,[49] Sen. John Kerry, former Gov. Mitt Romney, and businessman Bill Koch[50], who has donated $1.5 million to the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound.
Proponents suggest that some of this opposition is motivated in part by ownership of real-estate on Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard or the mainland and that it raises issues of environmental justice. Robert Kennedy, Jr., whose family's Kennedy Compound is within sight of the proposed wind farm, wrote an essay for the New York Times stating his support for wind power in general, but opposing this project.[51] This doesn't represent the view of most Massachusetts citizens: in a 2005 survey, 81% of adults supported the project, 61% of Cape Cod residents supported it, and only 14% of adults oppose it.[52]
A recent book by Robert Whitcomb, Vice President and Editorial Page Editor of the Providence Journal, and Wendy Williams argues that the fight over Cape Wind involves a powerful, privileged minority imposing their will on the majority.[53]
Cape Wind was an issue in the 2006 election for Governor of Massachusetts. The winner, Democrat Deval Patrick, supported the project; his Republican opponent, former Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, opposed it.[54][55]
In 2003 a documentary film entitled Wind Over Water about the controversy over the Cape Wind Project was released. The film by journalist Ole Tangen Jr. chronicled the debate as it unfolded on the Cape. An independent production, the filmmaker interviewed subjects from both sides of the debate including Jim Gordon, the driving force behind Cape Wind and Isaac Rosen, then director of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. Focusing also on wind power in general, Wind Over Water features aerial footage of the offshore wind farm at Horns Rev in Denmark and footage from various wind farms in the U.S. On December 6, 2003 the film made its world and Cape Cod premiere at the Lillie Auditorium in Woods Hole.
Satirical news correspondent Jason Jones of The Daily Show has also covered the Cape Wind project.[56]
A feature length documentary about the Cape Wind project, entitled Cape Spin: An American Power Struggle, had pre-release screenings in the summer of 2011.[57]
Wendy Williams and Robert Whitcomb have recently written a book about the project's history called Cape Wind: Money, Celebrity, Class, Politics and the Battle for Our Energy Future on Nantucket Sound.[58] In an interview, one of the authors states that the fight over Cape Wind is a case of a "a very small group of people, with more money than most of us can possibly imagine, who decided from the very beginning [...] that they didn't want it there, it would upset their Martini time."[53]
A 2007 Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) survey of 600 state residents found that 93% Massachusetts residents agree that the state should be "a national leader in using cleaner and renewable energy on a large scale by moving ahead with offshore wind power" and other clean energy initiatives. This statement is supported by 78 percent of those who live on the Cape and on the Islands.[59]
The 2007 ORC survey also found that 84% of Massachusetts residents — including 58% of those who live on the Cape and on the Islands — explicitly support "the proposed Cape Wind offshore wind farm that would involve wind turbines being placed in Nantucket Sound about five and a half miles from the Town of Hyannis." (A June 2006 survey posed the same question and found 81% support statewide and 61% in Cape Cod/the Islands.)[59]
In 2007, 78% of Massachusetts residents surveyed — including 61% of those living on the Cape and on the Islands — support wind as the best energy resource to provide electricity to Cape Cod and the Islands. Statewide, the support for other alternatives was as follows: nuclear (10%); coal (4%); and other (5%).[59]
Clean renewable energy is widely supported over nuclear power in Massachusetts, including on the Cape and on the Islands. Massachusetts residents would prefer to see solar power (91%), more energy conservation (90%), and wind power (89%) used first before resorting to more nuclear power. On the Cape and on the Islands, the views were very similar, with strong support for wind power (75%); conservation (81%); and solar (84%).[59]
2007 survey results were based on telephone interviews conducted among a sample of 600 householders aged 18 and over. Interviewing was completed by Opinion Research Corporation, for the Newton-based Civil Society Institute,[59] during July and August 2007.[59]
During the November 4, 2008 election, 87% of voters in eleven Massachusetts towns on the south shore, near but not on the Cape, voted yes on Question 4, a non-binding question that read:
The measure was voted on by the towns of Braintree, Holbrook, Randolph, Cohasset, Hingham, Hull, Marshfield, Scituate, Hanover, Norwell, and Rockland.[60]
A 2009 poll by the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce showed 55% of its members oppose the project and 41% supported it.[61]
A 2010 poll by the Boston Globe said 69% of respondents supported Cape Wind, to 20% opposed. Further questions about cost showed that half of respondents said they would not support paying higher prices for the project's electricity. In general, however, many respondents said they would be in favor of paying higher rates if it meant getting electricity from cleaner sources. Forty-two percent said they would be willing to pay more, while 7 percent were unsure.[62]
In 2010, the Massachusetts Attorney General's office estimates that Cape Wind will ultimately cost $2.5 billion. Costs of the electricity generated by the project are estimated to be double the 2010 price of traditional fossil fuels.[63]
According to a report in the Boston Globe, May 24, 2006, Jay M. Cashman, owner of a large construction company that built part of the Big Dig, proposed to build a $750 million wind farm in Buzzards Bay, about 20 miles (32 km) west of the proposed Cape Wind site. The Cashman farm would be closer (2 mi) to shore and would consist of 120 turbines, each 450 feet (140 m) tall. The projected generation capacity is 300 MW. According to the Globe, some opponents of the Cape Wind project have expressed interest in the Cashman plan.[64] In February, 2008, state law was amended removing a prohibition on the construction of electrical generating facilities within ocean sanctuaries.[65]
|
|||||||||||||||||