Knektid.com

Cape Wind and the Potential Effects on Cape Cod

April 25, 2008

Introduction

As global warming dominates headlines, researchers, economists, and entrepreneurs are seeking solutions to lessen human contributions to the crisis. A prominent proposal involves the construction of a massive offshore wind farm, known as Cape Wind, which will provide emission-free renewable electrical power to southeastern Massachusetts. The project has been simultaneously applauded by supporters and jeered by critics and has remained a center of controversy since the day it was announced.

Description of Development Site

The proposed Cape Wind project would be located in Nantucket Sound, a triangular shaped, 163 nautical square mile area offshore of Massachusetts in the Atlantic Ocean (DeAngelo).  The Sound is enclosed by Cape Cod on the north, Nantucket on the South, and Martha’s Vineyard on the west, and opens to the Gulf of Maine on the east and Vineyard Sound on the west.  This location rests within the inner portion of the New England continental shelf, the submerged mass of land that slopes gradually from the exposed edge of North America to where the drop-off to the deep seafloor begins (Department of Fisheries, Government of Australia).

Southeastern Massachusetts and the soil types found therein were shaped largely by the southernmost advance of the Laurentide Ice sheet 21,000 years ago and its subsequent retreat over the course of the following 2000 years (Uchupi and Mulligan). Later periods would produce deposition and pronounced erosion in Nantucket Sound due to changing water levels and the collapse of natural dams. These events were responsible for the mixture of sediment now found in the Sound, which ranges from clay of varying compaction to gravel, sand, and mud.

Nantucket Sound is described as a typical “flow through” coastal system, having a mean depth of roughly nine meters and a strong tidal current that can quickly transport particles and organisms between surrounding bodies of water (University of Massachusetts). Due to its unique position at a union of cold Labrador currents and the warm Gulf Stream, the Sound is home to a diverse range of marine habitats including open sea, salt marshes, and warm water beaches. This unique environment supports a wide variety of ecologically diverse species including many which are federally and state protected (Rivera).

The specific site of development for the Cape Wind project would be on an area in Nantucket Sound known as Horseshoe Shoal. This large sandbank has a water depth of between 2 and 50 feet at mean tide and is partially exposed at low tide (Cape Wind Associates). Owing to its thriving ecosystem, commercial fishermen working in Nantucket Sound cite the shoal as a productive region that provides up to 60% of their annual income (Hall-Arber). Mobile fishing vessels, or trawlers, are particularly adept at working the sandbank for its abundant squid, fluke, sea bass, and scup populations.

Cape Cod and the islands surrounding Nantucket Sound are significantly developed already and have seen a large increase in housing unit construction in recent years (Cape Cod Commission). Of the 14 counties in Massachusetts, Nantucket County and Dukes County, where Martha’s Vineyard is located, saw the highest housing growth rates, of 11.8% and 7.1% respectively, between the years 2000 to 2005. Barnstable County, where Cape Cod is located, saw its housing stock grow by 4.6% during the same time period. In all, roughly 9,000 new, primarily beach front, housing units were constructed in the region, while the population of the three counties grew by less than 4,000 (U.S. Census Bureau).

Energy Use in Cape Cod Region

Cape Cod and the surrounding islands derive the vast majority of their electrical power from the Canal Power Plant in Sandwich, MA, which feeds into the New England electrical grid and burns primarily oil and small quantities of natural gas. The forty year old plant, owned by the Mirant Corporation, is capable of generating 1,100 MW of electricity, or enough to power 1.1 million homes (Mirant Corporation). The three communities surrounding Nantucket Sound, however, account for a peak, summertime demand of less than half that amount, with Cape Cod responsible for roughly 90% of their aggregate energy consumption (Sustain Cape Cod).

Cape Wind Project Proposal

The project proposed by Cape Wind Associates would be the first offshore wind farm in the Unites States as well as the largest development of its kind in the world. Plans call for 130 wind turbines, each standing 440 feet tall, to be constructed a third to a half mile apart, covering an area of approximately 24 square miles. The farm would be situated from four to eleven miles offshore depending on the shoreline, and would be visible on the horizon from most towns surrounding it. This specific location in Nantucket Sound was largely chosen due to its significant average wind speeds as shown in Figure 1 below.

During periods of peak generation Cape Wind will be capable of producing 420 megawatts of energy, which is enough to power 420,000 homes in the region. Due to the ephemeral nature of power derived from the wind, however, the average output of the farm will be closer to 170 MW.  This power would directly offset the consumption of petroleum as the Canal Power Plant is one of a small number of plants in the country that create energy directly from the liquid fuel.

Concerns over Cape Wind Project

The Cape Wind project has faced tough opposition from groups representing a diverse scope of interests in New England, which highlights the significance of the Cape region. Concerns over potential ecological impacts, shipping disruptions, downturns in tourism, and declining property values have been brought to the forefront by a number of vocal and influential individuals and organizations. The unprecedented scale of the project and the sensitive location it would occupy has given rise to a myriad of camps that have been bitterly divided on the project since it was first proposed.

A major point of contention among opponents of the Cape Wind project regards the potential disruption of the sensitive Nantucket Sound ecology (Seccombe, Two Sides Debate Cape Wind Plan). The opposition group Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound has led this charge and has been vocal in pointing out the danger to the Sound’s status as a route for migratory birds (Save Our Sound). In spite of positive avian migration studies, and the blessing of the Massachusetts Audubon Society, this perceived threat is consistently presented at local Cape Wind forums and has garnered the attention of concerned environmental groups nationwide (Johnson).

Accessible ocean navigation in Cape Cod is of primary importance for maintaining commercial shipping channels as well as serving the needs of recreational boaters and ferry traffic. There has been some consternation that having to avoid or navigate an array of wind turbines at sea will create safety hazards and impede the ability of companies to conduct business in the region. The lobby group Save Our Sound has stated that the spacing of the wind turbines would allow for only one minute of evasive maneuvers for a boat travelling at 12 knots in the direction of one of the structures (Save Our Sound). They group also cites, somewhat ironically given the energy goals of the project, the fact that an oil tanker makes monthly trips through Nantucket Sound and would create an environmental disaster were it to collide with one of the turbines (Save Our Sound).

Upon submitting their initial proposal for the project in 2001, Cape Wind Associates offered a map, as seen in Figure 2 below, of the current shipping, ferry, and aviation traffic in Horseshow Shoal (Cape Wind Associates, LLC 9).

The company highlighted the fact that the development location has a water depth of less than 50 feet and is therefore not traversed by any main shipping channels (Cape Wind Associates, LLC 8). The 1500 foot distance between the southern edge of the development zone and the main east-west shipping channel in Nantucket Sound, however, has been a major point of contention throughout the approval process.

In December of 2005 Congressman Don Young of Alaska added an amendment to the Coast Guard Authorization bill that would ban any offshore wind farm that was to be located within 1.5 miles of a shipping channel (Ebbert). Cape Wind would fit this classification and the move was seen as a direct attack on the project, prompting a number of groups to vociferously oppose the threatening legislation (American Lung Association of Massachusetts). Green Peace, which had been a strong advocate for the Cape Wind project, began a letter writing campaign and drew focus to the Middelgrunden offshore wind farm in Denmark which is located within a third of a mile from shipping lanes and has had 25,000 ships annually pass by safely since 2001 (Green Peace). The Nysted wind farm, also located in Denmark, has additionally had no negative impact on the 60,000 ships that pass through a major shipping channel located within one mile of its boundaries (Macgillis).

In June 2006 the legal threat from the Coast Guard Authorization bill was significantly diminished when language was altered to give only the head of the Coast Guard the authority to change or block the Cape Wind project if he deemed it interfered specifically with navigation in Nantucket Sound (Klein). Although this was a major victory for Cape Wind, the episode underscored a huge underlying difficulty in pursuing the project.

Due to the proposed location of Cape Wind, which falls in federal waters, and the unprecedented nature of the development, Cape Wind Associates has had to satisfy federal, state, and local regulations alike (Daley). The project has fared well in recent months as the US Minerals Management Service, the government agency in charge of the permitting process, declared the wind farm to be safe for wildlife, navigation, and tourism in its January 2008 environmental impact statement (Barmann). Additionally, opposition from the state of Massachusetts has been significantly reduced following the 2006 election of Governor Deval Patrick, who is in favor of the project (Daley). With these threats diminished, Cape Wind Associates has been committed to addressing numerous local concerns over the development.

Cape Cod is known around the world as home to a thriving marine ecosystem that provides an abundance of highly desired and valuable seafood. Some of the most vocal criticism of the Cape Wind project has come from fishermen who depend on the Cape’s bounty to provide their livelihoods (Seccombe, Fishing Concerns Dominate Cape Wind Hearing). They have been emphatic that any negative impacts on Horseshoe Shoals’ fauna populations, which for some provides up to 60% of their annual revenue, would have serious repercussions for their businesses (Hall-Arber).

Numerous trade groups representing the interests of Cape Cod fishermen have warned that a loss of productivity near the shore will force fishing boats to travel farther out to sea and be seriously detrimental to profits. A point of particular emphasis has been the potential disruption of larvae and spawning beds in the area within the wind farm itself (Seccombe, Fishing Concerns Dominate Cape Wind Hearing). Cape Wind Associates has tried to allay these concerns by referencing favorable governmental impact reports that predict a minimal effect on the local marine populations. The company has also raised the possibility that the foundations of the turbines will actually increase the catch of fishermen by providing an ideal habitat for benthic life and attracting a number of fish species including Atlantic Cod, Black Sea Bass, and Scup (Cape Wind Associates, LLC).

Fishermen have also raised concerns over liability and insisted that insurance be provided to limit the potential economic impacts of a collision with a wind turbine (Hall-Arber). Cape Wind Associates has supported this request and has been required to pursue an insurance policy of its own to protect against the possibility of a storm related structural collapse. The firm has also agreed to secure advance financing for the eventual decommissioning of the wind farm (Cape Wind Associates).

The potential for a drop in tourism has also been repeatedly cited as a paramount concern by those opposed to the Cape Wind project (Daley). The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound points to studies by the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University that predict a significant loss in tourist dollars if the project is to succeed (Beacon Hill Institute). Cape Wind Associates, however, has countered these assertions by calling into question the accuracy and objectivity of the reports, and contending that members of the wealthy Egan family have contributed substantial sums of money to the institute in order to keep the turbines from the view of their Nantucket homes (Cape Wind Associates, LLC).

Underpinning the debate over tourism has been the more basic complaints over aesthetics and primarily how the presence of the wind turbines will affect property values of expensive houses in the region. The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound cites studies by the Beacon Hill Institute that calculate a loss in property value of $1.35 billion as a direct result of the Cape Wind project (Beacon Hill Institute). Cape Wind Associates has countered these estimates and stated that on clear days the wind farm will be visible only one half inch above the horizon and efforts will be made to color the structures to blend in with the skyline (Cape Wind Associates, LLC). The company’s assurances are reinforced by a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study that shows no statistical evidence for a negative effect on the value of 2200 homes located near wind farms (Williams).

Analysis and Conclusion

The ferocity of the debate over Cape Wind is a testament to the significance of the renewable energy project. Because of the extensive research into the technology and the tremendous success of offshore wind farms in Europe and elsewhere it’s safe to assume that Cape Wind can and will succeed both technically and economically. While the scientific research, environmental impact statements, and official assessments seem squarely in favor of the wind farm, there also remains a question as to our responsibility to protect important pieces of the American landscape. At the heart of this issue is a determination of what intrusions we’re willing to accept in order to lessen the impact of our fossil fuel dependence. Support of Cape Wind should be pursued with the realization that we’ve entered a time when global climate change is no longer an abstract notion, and the next wind farm may very well be proposed in our own backyard.

Works Cited

American Lung Association of Massachusetts. Take Action to Save Cape Wind! 27 February 2006. 22 March 2008 <http://lungaction.org/ala_of_massachusetts/alert-description.tcl?alert_id=3496703>.

Barmann, Timothy C. “Cape Wind Project Gets a Lift from Environmental Impact Report.” Providence Journal 15 January 2008.

Beacon Hill Institute. Cape Wind Proposal Fails Cost-Benefit Test. Study. Boston: The Beacon Hill Institute, 2004.

Cape Cod Commission. “Cape Trends.” 12 October 2006. Cape Cod Commission. 10 April 2008 <http://www.capecodcommission.org/data/CapeTrends-HousingGrowth20002005.pdf>.

Cape Wind Associates. Cape Wind :: America’s First Offshore Windfarm on Nantucket Sound. 1 January 2007. 26 March 2008 <http://www.capewind.org/article5.htm>.

Cape Wind Associates, LLC. An offshore renewable energy project. Project Presentation. Boston: Cape Wind Associates, LLC, 2001.

-. Cape Wind Environmental Studies. 1 January 2007. 5 April 2008 <http://www.capewind.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=38&page=1>.

-. Project Siting and Visual Simulations. 1 January 2007. 12 April 2008 <http://www.capewind.org/article7.htm>.

-. Statement on Beacon Hill Institute Report. 15 May 2006. 5 April 2008 <http://www.capewind.org/article123.htm>.

Daley, Beth. “Cape Wind Proposal Clears Big Obstacle.” Boston Globe 15 January 2008.

-. “Cape Wind Proposal Clears Big Obstacle.” Boston Globe 15 January 2008.

DeAngelo, Laura. Nantucket Sound, Massachusetts. 14 June 2007. 25 March 2008 <http://www.eoearth.org/article/Nantucket_Sound,_Massachusetts~_Cape_Wind_project>.

Department of Fisheries, Government of Australia. Glossary of Marine Terms. 1 April 2005. 8 April 2008 <http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/glossary/GlossaryPage02.php?00>.

Ebbert, Stephanie. “Capitol Hill Weighing Tighter Limits on Wind Farms.” Boston Globe 9 December 2005.

Green Peace. Stop Big Oil from Blowing Away the Competition. 1 1 2006. 15 March 2008 <http://members.greenpeace.org/action/start.php?action_id=76>.

Hall-Arber, Madeleine. Commercial Fishing in Nantucket Sound. Study. Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2004.

Johnson, Laura A. “Mass Audubon News.” 28 March 2006. Mass Audubon. 13 April 2008 <http://www.massaudubon.org/news/index.php?id=317&type=news>.

Klein, Rick. “Congress Reaches Pact on Wind Farm.” Boston Globe 22 June 2006: 1.

Macgillis, Donald. “Powerful Wind.” Boston Globe 13 June 2005.

Mirant Corporation. Mirant’s Canal Generating Plant. 1 January 2008. 22 March 2008 <http://www.mirant.com/our_business/where_we_work/canal.htm>.

Rivera, Justin K. A Novel Water Quality Monitoring Program for Nantucket Sound. Masters Project. Durham: Justin K. Rivera, 2007.

Save Our Sound. Cape Wind Concerns: Environment. 01 01 2007. 18 March 2008 <http://www.saveoursound.org/site/PageServer?pagename=CapeWind_Threats_Environment>.

-. Safety | Save Our Sound. 1 1 2008. 16 3 2008 <http://capeweb1.meganet.net/~sosweb/Cape/ConcernsSafety>.

Seccombe, Mike. “Fishing Concerns Dominate Cape Wind Hearing.” Vineyard Gazette 14 March 2008.

-. “Two Sides Debate Cape Wind Plan.” Vineyard Gazette 25 September 2007.

Sustain Cape Cod. Energy. 1 January 2008. 13 April 2008 <http://www.sustaincapecod.org/environment/Energy>.

U.S. Census Bureau. Quick Facts from the US Census Bureau. Census. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008.

Uchupi, Elazari and Ann E Mulligan. Late Pleistocene Stratigraphy of Upper Cape Cod and Nantucket Sound, Massachusetts. Study. Amsterdam: French National Center of Scientific Research, 2006.

University of Massachusetts. “Research.” 1 January 2005. Marine Ecosystems Dynamics Modeling. 23 March 2008 <http://fvcom.smast.umassd.edu/research_projects/Nsound/index.html>.

Williams, Wendy. “Wind Mills Don’t Sink Land Value.” Providence Journal 27 June 2007.

Filed under: Land Use Planning