Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cape Wind backers blew right by cost (by $2.5 billion)
Boston Globe ^ | October 10, 2010 | Beth Daley

Posted on 10/10/2010 5:42:37 AM PDT by reaganaut1

Amid the maelstrom of controversy over the nation’s first offshore wind farm, one truth is as plain as the proposed 440-foot turbines in Nantucket Sound are tall: Its energy will be very expensive.

That’s not just compared with power from coal and natural gas, but with renewable power from other sources.

Once the 130 turbines begin rotating, the energy produced will cost up to 50 percent more than energy today from some land-based wind farms and twice as much as some hydroelectric dams. The cost will increase customers’ monthly electric bills about 2 percent, and for many that is too steep in tough economic times.

So if Cape Wind is such a pricey proposition, why is it being built at all?

The answer lies at the intersection of a tenacious clean energy entrepreneur’s vision and an ambitious governor’s green one.

The arresting idea of a new energy source for power-starved New England was seized upon by Deval Patrick during his gubernatorial campaign. Then, after he won election in 2006, his administration helped engineer a sweeping overhaul of state policies that eased the path for the controversial proposal. Patrick and his energy czar, Ian Bowles, saw Cape Wind as just the project to spark a massive expansion of the renewable energy industry in Massachusetts.

They were focused on making Cape Wind happen; they didn’t worry nearly as much about the cost, a Globe review of state documents shows.

...

Now, after a new analysis by the attorney general’s office placed the cost of building Cape Wind at more than $2.5 billion, 2 1/2 times the original estimated price tag, the state Department of Public Utilities is weighing whether National Grid’s proposed 15-year contract with Cape Wind is a good deal for ratepapers.

(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Extended News; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: algore; cape; capewind; devalpatrick; energy; waste; windmill; windpower
This project needs to be stopped, and MA politicians like Deval Patrick and Ed "cap-and-trade" Markey need to be retired.
1 posted on 10/10/2010 5:42:46 AM PDT by reaganaut1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith

global warming ping


2 posted on 10/10/2010 5:43:54 AM PDT by reaganaut1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
But this project will destroy the property values of the rich Democrats and their beach-front COMPOUNDS.

It must go forward even if it's not needed and costs too much.

3 posted on 10/10/2010 5:45:47 AM PDT by muawiyah ("GIT OUT THE WAY" The Republicans are coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

I’m not aware of the particulars, but this project seems especially problematic. Getting the power to shore has to be more difficult than land-based wind turbines. Also, as anyone who lives near the ocean can tell you, there’s a much greater problem with corrosion. Aren’t wind turbines high maintenance to start with? Of course, why worry about cost when one has government (aka taxpayers) footing the bills.


4 posted on 10/10/2010 5:55:18 AM PDT by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1; grey_whiskers; proud_yank; markomalley; Dr. Bogus Pachysandra; Nipfan; Fiddlstix; ...
Thanx reaganaut1 !

 




Beam me to Planet Gore !

5 posted on 10/10/2010 5:57:44 AM PDT by steelyourfaith (ObamaCare Death Panels: a Final Solution to the looming Social Security crisis ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

“It must go forward even if it’s not needed and costs too much. “

I agree - this could be a VERY IMPORTANT lesson to the rest of the country. People are still being brainwashed to believe that you can have your green power for the same cost as ‘dirty’ power. Let them learn!!!


6 posted on 10/10/2010 6:01:21 AM PDT by BobL (The whole point of being human is knowing when the party's over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
The cost will increase customers’ monthly electric bills about 2 percent, and for many that is too steep in tough economic times.

When a leftie is against something, a 2% increase is a BFD! When they support something, no amount of increased expense is TOO BIG!

7 posted on 10/10/2010 6:03:53 AM PDT by Onelifetogive (I tweet, too...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

“Of course, why worry about cost when one has government (aka taxpayers) footing the bills.”

The price structure is interesting. Essentially, the turbines can charge as much as their ‘cost’ is (plus markup) and get paid that. Wouldn’t you love to have a customer like that? You could pay your workers ANYTHING. Hire your sister as a major contractor...the list goes on and on. It’s amazing and comical, so this project really needs to continue. I also hope the eyesores for those rich people put there also turn into earsores when there is on-shore wind. LOL.


8 posted on 10/10/2010 6:05:20 AM PDT by BobL (The whole point of being human is knowing when the party's over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

I think Teddy had the proposed site repositioned so that the turbines couldn’t be seen from shore.
A project like this hurts us all. It is federal money that is supporting this. It should be stopped all of them. If you want a whirligig making your electricity, fine pay for it your damn self. Not with my money! I’ll take the cheap stuff, that built the greatest country that ever has existed, coal, hot and cheap.


9 posted on 10/10/2010 6:09:26 AM PDT by Doulos1 (Bitter Clinger Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

“....and twice as much as some hydroelectric dams.”

...more hydro-electric power I say...
1.we know how to do it
2.it’s lakes provide recreational opportunities for the public.
3.it’s lakes provide a source of drinking water for our cities.
4.it’s lakes offer vacation home opportunities...who doesn’t enjoy relaxing for a weekend at a cabin on the lake?


10 posted on 10/10/2010 6:12:53 AM PDT by STONEWALLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doulos1
We could build low-head turbines to anchor across the Bay of Fundy and supply all the power North America could use for the next half dozen centuries.

If we built a large enough magnet at the Straits of Florida (something that is now feasible with carbon nano tubes) we could use magnetohydrodynamics to obtain enough electric power for the entire world for many years.

If we could put up a really neat kite/balloon somewhere over Alaska we could tap right into the magnetosphere and provide sufficient electric power to develop Northern Canada while also powering up the Lower 48.

If we......... built atomic power plants .................

Did you see any windmills in that ?

No you didn't. That's because "per kilowatt hour" windmills are too costly compared to any one of those proposals.

11 posted on 10/10/2010 6:14:34 AM PDT by muawiyah ("GIT OUT THE WAY" The Republicans are coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

Aren’t wind turbines high maintenance to start with? Of course, why worry about cost when one has government (aka taxpayers) footing the bills.


These are the green jobs. Doubtless the salaries will originate with the government, even though they are likely to be issued to the workers by the turbine companies.

The son of friends is currently in school to become a wind turbine technician. He is there because he sees no chance for a return to carpentry and contracting.

In speaking with him, he mentioned that the wind turbines are being built “in Europe, because it is cheaper.”

After we questioned how that could be, given currency exchange rates and the cost of transport,not to mention all the income guarantees and unions involved, he looked puzzled, but not yet doubting. He did say that American companies are “working hard to get their hands into the turbine construction field. (Aside: we know an engineer whose company already does this. He is becoming more and more worried about his own position surviving.)

The young man quoted an astronomical figure for the number of land-based turbine techs that will be needed and he is confident that he will be able to become a supervisor eventually, as the hordes continue taking this training and will, of course, all become workers and continue in those positions, needing experienced supervision. He and his classmates are counting on the proposed Lake Michigan wind farms as a source of continuing employment, as well.

He’s in his late 20s and is a good guy in every way. We didn’t push our POV because we just didn’t want to argue with him at that point. That is mainly because he is finishing our roofing after my husband injured himself and we don’t need to antagonize him.


12 posted on 10/10/2010 6:18:18 AM PDT by reformedliberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BobL

My dentist has erected two whirlygigs in his parking lot. They’re about 40 feet tall, with three vertical blades. Annoying.


13 posted on 10/10/2010 6:25:34 AM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

And New Jersey is getting read for it’s own Big Dig.

Also known as the Rail Tunnel.

Christie figures that if it’s gummint money it’s A OK.


14 posted on 10/10/2010 6:28:10 AM PDT by Carley (For those who fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
I live on the Cape. What amazed me about this project is that people fought over it for years on grounds of it not being green enough. Would birds be hit? Would the pristine view of the water from the Kennedy compound be blocked? Would it interfere with navigation (Ted got an Alaskan senator to object on some obscure ground, because he didn't want to do it himself)? Was the site (or the alternate) on an old sacred Indian ground? And on, and on.

Faced with these ridiculous arguments, I tended to be for it. Discussions of cost were hidden until after Deval Patrick persuaded the administration to push through the necessary waivers for the project. As information on the heretofore undiscussed costs and various sweet deals leaked out, my opinion changed. What I don't get is this: Why weren't these out front from the very beginning? Why were all the opponents to this project fighting it on moonbat grounds? They could have mobilized a lot more of the sane public opinion on economic grounds.

15 posted on 10/10/2010 6:30:18 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine (/s, in case you need to ask)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

......Why weren’t these out front from the very beginning?....

Because money, that is costs, are not a consideration. Free Electricity from the wind with no carbon emissions is all that matters. (and, Denmark has them)


16 posted on 10/10/2010 6:34:52 AM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... Greetings Jacques. The revolution is coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

The cost of generating electricity is 50% more, but the customer’s bill will only rise 2%????

How is that possible? Its not like the cost of power is a small insignificant factor in the utility business?

Something stinks.


17 posted on 10/10/2010 6:35:26 AM PDT by SampleMan (If all of the people currently oppressed shared a common geography, bullets would already be flying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

“The cost will increase customers’ monthly electric bills about 2 percent, and for many that is too steep in tough economic times. “

Just another emotional liberal viewpoint another pinhead that can’t do math.

Simple put: 2% of a $100 utility bill is $2. Of a $400 utility bill: $8.


18 posted on 10/10/2010 6:36:15 AM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
And while most of the public accepts that moving away from fossil fuels is essential if the battle against climate change is to have a chance

Most of the New England public is terminally stupid. Anyone from the region with half a brain has by now moved to Texas.

19 posted on 10/10/2010 6:43:16 AM PDT by Spartan79 (Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
The cost of generating electricity is 50% more, but the customer’s bill will only rise 2%????

This is a huge, ongoing controversy in Boston/Mass.

What they are doing is passing all the costs onto businesses. Consumers will pay 2% more but businesses (depending on size) will pay up to 100% more. And of course they will pass all costs back to consumers in the end.
20 posted on 10/10/2010 6:44:57 AM PDT by nhwingut (Palin/Bachmann '12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Carley

Carley,

Isn’t that the project he cancelled last week because the state couldn’t afford it?


21 posted on 10/10/2010 6:48:07 AM PDT by LRoggy (Peter's Son's Business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

LOL. Is he getting rich?


22 posted on 10/10/2010 6:49:10 AM PDT by BobL (The whole point of being human is knowing when the party's over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LRoggy

Christie said he was willing to “reconsider” it. That doesn’t mean he’s accepting it though.


23 posted on 10/10/2010 6:59:26 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Spartan79
"Anyone from the region with half a brain has by now moved to Texas"

And Texas, by far, leads the nation in windpower.

In the near future(2013), the new windlines will be built and the Texas CREZ wind project will move forward and even more wind power will be generated in Texas.

Not to mention the potential for Texas offshore wind power. Texas has a leg up over other coastal states because Texas waters extend out 10 miles compared to 3 miles for other coastal states.

24 posted on 10/10/2010 7:00:03 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BobL

“Is he getting rich?”

He’s a high tech dentist. He’s rakin’ it in hand over fist!


25 posted on 10/10/2010 7:17:07 AM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: LRoggy

Yes. LaHood swooped down to meet with Chrisite and make an offer Christie is willing to consider.

We’ll see what happens next but most likely it will be gummint dollars that saves the tunnel.


26 posted on 10/10/2010 7:25:39 AM PDT by Carley (For those who fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Carley

Since small consumers of electricity pay lower rates, the main impact will be on large users and business’s that will pay much more than 2% increase. This tends to drive business and jobs away from the higher rates. It isn’t as cheap as it sounds.


27 posted on 10/10/2010 7:33:12 AM PDT by Oldexpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: reformedliberal

Wind trbines are all politics.


28 posted on 10/10/2010 7:38:12 AM PDT by Eldon Tyrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

BUT, the energy source is “free” and renewable, so they’ll be at breakeven in about 2306.


29 posted on 10/10/2010 7:41:34 AM PDT by G Larry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
This project needs to be stopped, and MA politicians like Deval Patrick and Ed "cap-and-trade" Markey need to be retired.

Come on, be reasonable, it's only (our) money. If it was something important I'd get excited about it. /S

30 posted on 10/10/2010 7:44:09 AM PDT by dearolddad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

They could cut the cost by moving the windmills closer to shore, where they would be more easily appreciated by the green crowd that populates the area.


31 posted on 10/10/2010 7:50:18 AM PDT by Balding_Eagle (If America falls, darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carley

Christie just shut that down to much whining from the expected NY pols.


32 posted on 10/10/2010 8:45:36 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (No Representation without Taxation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Wind power is a complete disaster

"Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone)."

The only people who benefit from wind energy are the turbine manufacturers, the construction companies and union members who build the windmills, and the investors who collect the federal energy subsidies. Taxpayers and energy consumers just get higher taxes, higher energy bills, and sanctimonious lectures on why their very existence is a burden to the earth and all of mankind.

33 posted on 10/10/2010 9:02:37 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The only stable state is one in which all men are equal before the law." -- Aristotle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

Copy - so he doesn’t have to choose between dog food and electricity.


34 posted on 10/10/2010 9:04:44 AM PDT by BobL (The whole point of being human is knowing when the party's over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

Agreed. Wind power in Texas makes much more sense than in Massachusetts. Drive I-10 from San Antonio to El Paso and you’ll see thousands of the big wind turbines -— in areas where they can be erected and maintained for a small fraction of the cost for similar turbines offshore in New England. And, as one who grew up in that part of Texas, I can tell you this: the wind in west Texas doesn’t blow, it sucks.

The problem in west Texas is transmission costs: the turbines are for the most part hundreds of miles from major population centers.


35 posted on 10/10/2010 9:37:12 AM PDT by Spartan79 (Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

NOT shut down. Being reconsidered following an offer from Transportation Sec.LaHood.


36 posted on 10/10/2010 9:52:26 AM PDT by Carley (For those who fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
We could build low-head turbines to anchor across the Bay of Fundy and supply all the power North America could use for the next half dozen centuries.

If we built a large enough magnet at the Straits of Florida (something that is now feasible with carbon nano tubes) we could use magnetohydrodynamics to obtain enough electric power for the entire world for many years.


Any credible links? Maybe we should build both? ;-)
37 posted on 10/10/2010 11:30:07 AM PDT by Tunehead54 (Nothing funny here ;-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Best wind turbine I ever saw:


38 posted on 10/10/2010 2:06:28 PM PDT by upchuck (When excerpting please use the entire 300 words we are allowed. No more one or two sentence posts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson