Case Study: Cape Wind

Chapter 13

Cape Wind

Massachusetts, Nantucket Sound

Click on the image below for video background of the Cape Wind Project:

Following the OAPEC limiting the supply of oil to the U.S. in the 1970’s, the disaster in Buzzards Bay in 2003 was another harsh reminder to cut reliance on fossil fuels. Over 100,000 gallons of oil were leaked into the bay and ninety-three miles of beaches were coated with oil.⁴⁰ The spill resulted in not only polluted water but, hundreds of birds died from being coated in oil and thousands of acres of shellfish beds were closed for months. Even eight years following the spill, effects were still present. It was then known to the public to have had ineffective clean-up strategies.⁴¹ These two crises, along with the many complications that were associated with it, are what encouraged the nation’s first offshore wind energy project in the waters adjacent to Massachusetts

Jim Gordon, an alternative energy entrepreneur, proposed in 2001 to build an offshore wind farm with 170 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound in Massachusetts that would provide ¾ of the energy to the 15 towns in Barnstable County that make up Cape Cod along with 3 other major towns. Cape Wind was the first project of its kind in the United States in 2001. The proposal, however, was resisted but the Cape Wind project was, “all but dead.”⁴⁰

The concerns⁴⁰

• Who should be allowed to develop resources in publicly owned waters?
• Who has jurisdiction over development of the ocean?
• Should Cape Wind be allowed to proceed because of the urgency of addressing global warming, even in the absence of a regulatory framework?

Location, Location, Location⁴⁰

The wind farm was proposed to be out of shipping lanes, invulnerable to crashing waves and in relatively shallow waters. The area had promising strong winds, and ferry routes were also on the outside of the cove. The shallow waters and strong breezes alone made the location perfect for an offshore wind farm (See Image 1).

• The DOE explained that the coast of Massachusetts was independently outstanding in its location for wind farms.
  • Incentives were created to exploit those wind resources in 1997, six years after Europe was making huge progress with wind energy.

Image 19

Defenders⁴⁰

Jim Gordon was the top spokesperson for the project. The project proposed to offset more than 1 million tons of CO₂, without Cape Wind, 85 million gallons of oil would be burned, and 500,000 tons of coal would be burned, turbines would be no more lethal than plate-glass windows, no cartel can cut off our supply to wind, and the project would enhance a decrease in reliance for foreign oil. One of the concerns of the wind farm was its impact on tourism and in Denmark, wind turbines actually increased tourism

• In 2003, they gained over 100 members in support following the April 2003 oil spill.

Opposition

The objectors were mainly the Kennedy family and their wealthy allies who wished to protect the scenic views of Nantucket Sound. The Kennedy family is a prominent and wealthy family that has a long history in politics in the United States.⁴² The objectors argued that the project would illustrate “industrialization of a pristine landscape” that would poorly modify the seascape.⁴⁰

The opposition is “Pure nibyism”.⁴⁰ Nimbyism is defined as the resistance of the public to certain projects that are in close proximity to their residence.⁴³ “Not in my backyard” enthusiasts explained that the wind farm on Nantucket Sound would cause too much noise, have a poor effect of property values, harm wildlife and birds, and impair the scenery.⁴⁴ They also raised concern about private ownership of public land, the interference with air craft flights and boat navigation, and the impact on tourism.⁴⁰ Some termed the project as a “financial boondoggle” which you can assume is a bad thing.⁴⁰

Figure 2 (Image 15)  below illustrates how the advantages outweigh the disadvantages with wind power.

Image 20

Project Promises ⁴⁰

• No long-lasting adverse impacts on
  • Wildlife
  • Navigation
  • Fishing
  • Tourism
  • Recreation
• 364 birds could be killed each year, this number is unlikely to affect endangered species or specific populations of birds.
• Fish and shellfish populations would only be disturbed during construction.
• Navigation will not become any more hazardous, but it would require more boater awareness.
• Views would be minimally altered but the farm would create jobs and increase tourism.

History of the Cape Wind Project ⁴⁰

In 1973 the U.S. experienced an oil shortage from OAPEC (The Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries) that limited the supply of oil to the West in order in increase the income of those member states in the Middle East. This shortage led to the U.S. funding research and development for renewable energy technologies.

From 1974 to 1981 engineers tested several wind turbine designs and the U.S. shifted from funding research and development to providing tax credits, loans, and loan guarantees to those who implement renewable energy sources. In the mid 1980’s funding for research and development halted as wind turbines malfunctioned and they were deemed a reputation of being unreliable.

Funding resumed is 1989 when George H. W. Bush began funding for wind energy through the National Wind Technology Center, operated by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado. The cost of generating wind energy decreased and wind energy became a main competitor with coal and natural gas.

In 1990, many states adopted some form of renewable portfolio standard (RPS) which required that electricity providers obtained a certain minimum percentage of power from renewable energies. In the early 2000’s, wind energy was the leading and fastest growing renewable energy source. DOE reported that only 0.6 percent of the land area in the lower 48 states would be needed to supply energy to more than 45 million households.

The original proposal was 170 turbines, rising 426 feet above the ocean floor and spreading 28 square miles to create 420 MW of energy yielding 168 MW of energy. In 2003 Cape Wind lowered the number of turbines to 130 which moved the farm about a half mile further from the shore line, shrunk the turbine diameters from 20 feet to about 16 feet and lessened the height to 417 feet above the seafloor to be less of a disturbance. All of the changes would still develop the same amount of energy with recent advancements. However, the opposing party was still ultimately concerned with the location.

February of 2003 the Center for Coastal Studies released research concluding that the Nantucket Sound was, “…a pristine and tremendously productive ecosystem worthy of environmental conservation and protection.” In April of 2003, following the Buzzards Bay oil spill, they gained over 100 members in support and after back and forth conflicts, applying for state and federal permits, and a lot of recruiting for support, in mid- April of 2009 the project gained the support it had fought for. More complications began to surface and 6 years after being granted the lease, Cape Wind submitted a notice to surrender its lease.⁴⁴

To see a more detailed timeline of the Cape Wind Project, click on the Image below.

Image 21

Possible easier solutions⁴⁰

• Local ownership- civilians think local ownership is more appealing and giving those neighborhoods/communities partial ownership is an even greater advantage.
• Building in a less controversial location.

In terms of priorities, Cape Wind should have been on the top of the list regarding a successful use of renewable energy sources. Cape Wind cut the path for future projects of the same scale and it also provided insight to the flaws in the federal permitting process in the United States. The project had a highly uncertain future from the start.⁴⁵

Image 22

Image 23