Environmental activist and author Bill McKibben salutes “An Earth Day with Promise”, and also our my US Rep., Ed Markey.
Here’s part of what Markey said at last week’s event:
Markey said the latest report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reinforces that global warming is already occurring here and abroad. “Congress must take action to avoid the catastrophes that a hotter world would bring,” he stated in a release on Monday. “This scientific report also highlights our moral obligation to take immediate action to limit the impact of global warming.”
That’s good stuff. And I’m genuinely thrilled about his chairmanship of the new committee. He’s been getting some nice local TV press for his environmental work.
Now, about that immediate action: What about Cape Wind? Right now it’s wrapped up in even yet still more federal regulatory red tape. Markey’s got a new gig with new power: Isn’t there anything he can do to move that permitting process along? Words, meet action.
PS: The last guy to cross Ted Kennedy on Cape Wind a.) flaunted it, putting little windmills all over his website, and b.) won by twenty points. As an electoral matter, there’s just no question that Cape Wind is a winner. The only question for any elected official is whether Kennedy can twist your arm hard enough on other matters to make one say “uncle” on Cape Wind. Why let him?
peter-porcupine says
mobeach42 says
So, here i’m going to post my first BMG comment. (Great to link to McKibben in the top!) I guess I’m just not sold on the idea of Cape Wind as being a solution, or even a productive step, towards solving the climate crisis.
<
p>
A more important step, it seems, is to get us away from the central-generation paradigm. Building another massive power plant isn’t going to solve the distribution and reliability problem and enable citizens to wrap their minds around the ridiculous amount of energy they consume. It won’t help us refocus us on what’s truly going to get us out of this crisis – localism and personal responsibility.
<
p>
I’m from the Cape and am a happy sometimes contributor to Clean Power Now!, but am not sure the Cape Wind does anything to counter the really harmful NIMBYism: I don’t want to have to change my lifestyle or put a turbine/PV panels in my back yard.
<
p>
But who knows?
syphax says
Welcome.
<
p>
Wind turbines have a serious economy of scale issue- in that big ones are a lot cheaper per unit energy produced than smaller ones. As in, large-scale wind is cost-competitive with other generating sources; small-scale wind, not so much.
<
p>
It also helps to be where the wind is. Available power goes with the cube of wind speed. If you look at a wind resource map for the MA area, Cape Wind makes a hell of a lot of sense. The Cape is OK, but most of inland MA sucks in terms of wind resources.
<
p>
A bunch of huge turbines in Nantucket Sound are economically viable; a huge number of smaller ones in peoples’ (less windy) backyards is not.
<
p>
And while solar is great, but let’s get realistic. If you run the numbers on how much it would cost to, say, supply 100% (or any other number) of MA’s electricity with solar, you come to a very large number (I’m happy to do the math again, but am pressed for time right now- I did the math for my town awhile ago). Now the economics of solar are changing, and it’s not insane to envision a day when solar is cost-competitive with coal and the rest (the experience curve for solar, cost vs. cumulative production, is cause for some optimism), but that day isn’t all that close. Certainly not close enough to say Cape Wind isn’t needed as a clean source of energy.
<
p>
It’s true that we in the US consume a crazy amount of energy. But even if we cut that in half, or 2/3, through conservation and efficiency and personal responsibility, we still will be using a crazy amount of energy.
<
p>
And Cape Wind would still be desirable. In terms of environmental impact and economics, it’s just tough to beat wind. That’s not to say wind power has no impacts, or that they should be ignored, but large-scale wind is clean and cheap.
<
p>
Even under the most ambitious possible distributed clean energy scenarios, in which we all power our geothermal heat pumps with PV (or passive solar, grass pellet cogeneration, whatever), Cape Wind would still be cheaper and cleaner than pretty much any other option.
<
p>
And I should be clear that I’m not a particularly huge wind advocate. I don’t think we should have turbines in every windy locale. But Cape Wind just fundamentally makes sense to me.
peter-porcupine says
I left this as a quote the other day on the Eisenthal Report, about Kerry’s position on Cape Wind, but it’s relevant here as well.
<
p>
<
p>
Another thing to consider – Cape Wind is sited on the Shoals because it is in OPEN WATER. Other sites – like the Base – are on land. Setting aside bird issues, et al, the speed of wind decreases about 30% when it hits the shore. So – no only do you lose the benefit of the clustered transmission (check out ‘cable leakage’), you are also geting less effective wind power, and thus less production.
syphax says
… for a change.
<
p>
Thanks for passing along the exercise.