Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Please Support Cape Wind This Week!

By

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has said he will make the final decision on Cape Wind in April, but before he does he wants to hear from you!  Comments are due by this Friday, February 12.  Click on this link for more information:

http://www.capewind.org/news10…

Thanks!  Mark Rodgers, Cape Wind

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I hope before one blindly supports this cause, they look into the facts. First and foremost the industrializing of Nantucket Sound by a private developer. Nantucket Sound is a national treasure that should not be exploited by industrializtion. Capewind wants to install 130 turbines, standing 440ft tall. For reference, the canal bridges are 275ft tall, covering 25 square miles, an area the size of Manhattan And they would like to install a 10-story high electrical platform holding 40,000 gallon of transformer oil and 1000 gallons of diesel fuel with a helicopter pad on it. The sitting of this misplaced project would do irreparable damage to Nantucket Sound.

    <

    p>Now let’s talk Money. A quote right from the FEIS (Final Environmental Impact Statement), go to the link and look for yourselves, they say the cost of capewind energy will be $122/MWhr. Today’s current electricity rate is $53.27/MWhr. That would make capewind’s electricity 2.29 times higher than the current market rate.  Go to the links and look for yourself. Because it will be coming out of your pocket into the pockets of capewind and it’s investors.

    <

    p>http://www.mms.gov/offshore/Re…

    <

    p>http://www.iso-ne.com/markets/…

    <

    p>This does not even include the estimated 1.3 billion dollars in federal and state tax credits and subsidies that us taxpayers will be paying to this private developer over the life of the project. I would think that in this poor economic climate that we are in; the 1.3 billions dollars could be spent more usefully than giving the money to a for-profit private developer.

    <

    p>And be aware that this has been rigged in backroom dealings. All oil and gas offshore leases are put out to bid, not this one. Capewind used a backroom lobbying effort to insert language into the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that made it a no bid process. Capewind has stated that this location is the only economically feasible location; well if that is the case, then it should most certainly be put out to bid, if it is that valuable.

    <

    p>As for the jobs that this project will create, the majority of the jobs will be temporary jobs, not permanent jobs.

    <

    p>Capewind would interfere with marine and aviation navigation, and if would severely hamper any search and rescue missions in the projected windfarm location.

    <

    p>It will not put any existing power plants out of business; it would barely be a drop in the bucket of reducing our dependence on foreign oil, air pollution or global warming. The Capewind Marketing department has done a great job spinning their attempted corporate land grab, into this great lie about how capewind will lower electricity cost, stop our dependency on foreign oil, and cure global warming, when in reality the only thing capewind cares about, is making a profit. If you don’t believe me look at another recent attempt by the same company that owns capewind, they tried to build a fossil fuel burning plant right across the street from a school in Chelsea.

    <

    p>http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P…

    <

    p>Don’t believe the capewind spin, all they care about is profit, not the electric rate payers, taxpayers, environment or jobs, they are in it for their wallets.

    <

    p>Please look into the facts before you buy capewind’s spin!

    • I’m too tired to pong the ping.  Feel free to go back to any number of old threads debating the finer points and details of BFT’s claims (which don’t come from peer reviewed and then revised work by and large).

      <

      p>But, briefly because I’m a glutton for punishment

      <

      p>

      As for the jobs that this project will create, the majority of the jobs will be temporary jobs, not permanent jobs.

      <

      p>That’s true with all power plants but, as it turns out, wind creates more permanent jobs per MW than fossil fuel or nuclear plants, and more of those jobs are local.

      <

      p>

      Capewind would interfere with marine and aviation navigation, and if would severely hamper any search and rescue missions in the projected windfarm location.

      <

      p>Negatory.  These turbines are on the order of 3/4 of a mile apart.  This was a concern bandied about a few years ago; it’s been resolved by the appropriate agencies, both civilian and military.

      <

      p>

      It will not put any existing power plants out of business

      <

      p>Not directly, but it will reduce the amount of coal/oil/gas burned for electricity, thereby reducing the CO_2 emissions and assorted air pollutants.

      <

      p>

      <

      p>BFT does get one thing exactly right though:

      Don’t believe the capewind spin, all they care about is profit, not the electric rate payers, taxpayers, environment or jobs, they are in it for their wallets.

      <

      p>Youbetcha, and Jim Gordon hasn’t claimed otherwise.  The same can be said for the owners of coal fired, oil fired, and natural gas fired power plants.  So what?  The question is: what kind of power generation do we want in the 21st century?

        • I support common-sense environment policy that will help to reduce pollution and preserve our precious open spaces. … I support reasonable and appropriate development of alternative energy sources such as wind…

          <

          p>(from SB4Sen)

          <

          p>I read this to mean: NIMBY and BANANA whenever my supporters shout it without being publicly against it.  Hope I’m wrong, but SB was reported as being against CW (Herald).

Archives