Patrick sets ambitious wind power goal for Mass.
By Bina Venkataraman, Globe Correspondent
Governor Deval Patrick announced today a goal of building enough wind turbines in the state by 2020 to supply energy to 800,000 homes.
Currently, the state has about 6.6 megawatts of wind power capacity generated by nine wind turbines. The governor's new target to develop 2,000 megawatts of wind power capacity is about 10 percent of the state's current electricity demand.
Officials say the target is intended to guide the incentives and policies made by state agencies. "It helps to motivate the bureaucracy," said Ian Bowles, the secretary for energy and environmental affairs. About one-tenth to one-quarter of the governor's wind power target could be reached with municipal-scale projects, Bowles said. "Offshore wind is going to need to make up a substantial part of it."
But the offshore wind farm proposed for Nantucket Sound that proponents say would fulfill three-quarters of the electricity demand of the Cape and Islands continues to face opposition from groups concerned about the impact of the 130 turbines on views, property values, navigation, and historical sites.
In late December, the federal agency responsible for evaluating Cape Wind released a report showing that the wind farm would have an "unavoidable" adverse effect on views from 28 historical sites, including the Edgartown Harbor Lighthouse and Nantcuket Cliffs, as well as a negative impact on the ceremonial practices of the local Wampanoag Indians because the turbines would be visible on the horizon.
The report's findings will be included in a final environmental review of the project expected to be released soon, said Nicholas Pardi, a spokesman for the Minerals Management Service, the federal agency.
"This report to us is another example of why Nantucket Sound is a poor site for an industrial size wind plant," said Audra Parker, executive director of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, the central opponent to Cape Wind.
Mark Rodgers, spokesman for Cape Wind, said the report's findings are not new. "All that it really means is that in certain conditions you will be able to see wind turbines from these sites. We don’t dispute that you would be able to see wind turbines."
Comment
Permalink
Email
Attach a fan to the state house, there is enough "wind" coming out of there to power the whole state
I think visually, (it's a curse) instead of Bean Town we would become Beany Town with every home looking like a beany hat with a whirly gig on top. Arghh, seriously, we do need to get a strong alternate energy industry going in this country to create jobs for the future and lose our dependence on foreign oil, but I do not believe wind is the most efficient or cost effective solution.
The environmentalist do not want nuclear, gas or oil... So you give them wind and they complain about that too.. The fish will love the cover of a turbine miles off shore... Time to get the nukes going.. France is 80% nuclear powered. It is safe.
PUT THEM IN WORCESTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do people realize how far off the shore the turbines would be in Nantucket Sound?? There is plenty of activity on the water that "ruins" my view. Plus, ever been to Palm Springs and see those wind farms?? They are majestic and beautiful. Get off it. Build them on Nantucket Sound!!
If they stuck a "fan" on municpal bldings maybe that would hold the line on property taxes. Not only would it create jobs, it would have future benefits as well!
This State requires something like 20 gigawatts (10 zeros) of electric power to operate (heat and cool our homes, run our businesses, etc) and that power has to come from somewhere. Nuclear and fossil fuels aren't great options either, so I for one welcome Patrick's wind plan. Good luck, Gov.!
Greenspan admits Iraq was about oil, as deaths put at 1.2m. I'd rather live in "Beany Town."
How about we focus on the problems at hand with the Financial crisis, raising gas taxes, and eliminating jobs. Looking too far into the uncertain future. We have no idea where we will be in 2020.
Right now Massachusetts needs to focus on getting its books straight.
Other than that I know that we need alternative energies. I would like to see more nuclear power plants being built until we have an efficient alternative energy source.
Let us put either one wind turbine or solar panel on every home in MA, now that is a good idea that will save people money and reduce our energy consumption. We could have tax rebates or grants.
i really hate the crying of the beautiful people. NIMBY. I fully support wind, nuclear and more drilling to get us away from foreign sources of energy. This is America. Get it done already. Go Pickens Plan.
These residents and lawmakers are ignorant. The benefits of reducing our carbon footprint with a wind power alternative will help reduce global warming which will keep Cape Cod above water. Their nice water views and historic sites will not exist if we DON'T use alternative sources of energy.
Yeah, you welcome the Governor's plan as long as they aren't by your house, right? Hey, it's OK. King Kennedy has dodged them so far so you're allowed to say you don't want them either. I know; put them in Vermont. They'll never notice.
Just don't put them anywhere Teddy might want to sail his yacht.
Great Idea....
and to those people complaining about having to SEE a windmill....
Better a windmill then SMOG from OIL and COAL pollution....
And let's try to LOWER the CANCER rate on the Cape huh?
If you think a WINDMILL is ugly, have you even NOTICED how ugly telephone and above street wirires are?
I see the censors are hard at work here - refusing to post anti-wind comments.
Wind power is an illusion people.
I have the Salem Dominion coal plant IMBY right now... I'd much prefer wind turbines!!! Bring 'em on!!!
How can anyone be "antiwind"...it's like being anti-sun, or anti-cool breezes on the beach. Who are you Mr. windisnot theanswer...a coal miner?
i want to increase any program to reduce the country's dependence on imported energy but I would rather see smaller wind turbines place on each highway or state light pole. This way the infrastructure already exits, envirinmental surveys require less study and the turbines would get a boost from the movement of traffic below.
Why wind energy is totally irrelevant and a complete waste of resources.
1) Today humanity uses 426 Quads (426.000.000.000.000.000 BTU) of energy per year, of which the lion’s share comes from burning coal. (50 % worldwide, I don’t think that is a very bad estimate)
That means: 213.000.000.000.000.000 / 20.000.000 (This is the amount of BTU one ton of coal produces when burned.) = 10.650.000.000 tons of coal are burned by humanity every year. With the result that we are pumping 10.650.000.000 x 2.86 (burning one ton of coal produces on average 2.86 tons of CO2 (plus a lot of other harmful stuff)) = 30.459.000.000 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year.
2) In ten years time humans will “need” or use 150 Quads more, thinking about the 3 billion people in the fast developing countries like China, India, Indonesia, Russia, etc., sitting on very big coal reserves!
3) Global warming has set in and one of its major contributors is CO2. Our days are counted if we don’t do anything about it!
In my opinion it will be impossible to take coal out of the energy equation for the next 100 years, because all the renewables (now worldwide probably a energy contributor of less than 3 %) will not be able to off-set the amount of energy produced from coal and coal is the most available fossil fuel in those fast developing populous countries. Social pressures will force those fast developing countries to burn coal anyway (in a clean or dirty way). Wars have been fought for much sillier reasons. Therefore I am of the opinion that we have to develop the technology to burn coal in a clean and environmental friendly way, despite the extreme difficulties and extremely high costs. We cannot deprive humanity today of about 213 Quads (halve of its energy “needs” or usage) and we cannot go-on burning fossil fuels as we do today without destroying the global climate completely. Both ways (depriving or dirty burning) will bring war, death and mass extension for humans.
I am of the opinion that all resources spend on Wind Energy is a waste of time and resources because it only tackles 4 % of our total energy problem in about 15 years time! ( 20 % of our total energy needs go to electricity generation and the politicians want 20 % of our electricity from Wind Power in about 10 to 15 years time. 20% of 20% = 4%)
These resources could be used in a much better and effective way. By for instance:
1. informing the general public about our real energy needs and explain how much we waste.
2. Educating the general population how to save energy.
3. Creating a real awareness about every bodies personal footprint and make it a national and global sport to make those individual footprints as small as possible, through schools and television programs (through EDUCATION)
4. Going for the technology to burn coal (and other fossil fuels) as clean as possible. Humanity is going to burn them anyway.
5. Plasma Fusion and Super Conductivity are the only technologies that really can get humanity out of its energy predicament. But it will take decades before we have those technologies available.
For me Wind Power is as ridiculous as putting sails on 300.000 ton Super Tankers to off-set 4 % bunker oil by WIND Power. (And when you make some simple calculations you will see that this ridiculous idea is of the same order of magnitude as Wind Power!)
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
contributors
Recent Blog Posts
browse this blog
by categoryRelated Blogs
Organizations
Information Sources
INside Boston.com
of the rich and creamy