I do have children in whose future I am invested. Your flowery suppositions, “clean”, “green”, “safer world”, indicate to me that you know very little about the International Cartel behind Jim Gordon of Cape Wind’s misadventure. And, they don’t care about my children.

This video of the leaders of the State of Massachusetts, and U.S. Energy Secretary Chu, should give you a clue. Appearing with them, and speaking, is a very powerful “zillionaire”, who generally hides behind Cape Wind’s curtain.

Your English accent is annoyingly affected, by the way.

http://www.necn.com/Boston/Business/2009/05/12/Wind-turbines-to-be-tested-in/1242160830.html

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2005Summer/windpower.html

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1434804/000104746908008563/a2186834zs-1.htm#ew77801_experts

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=6499926

This is the 21st century; climate change is a real threat to humankind. It’s time for B.D. to face the fact that we need renewable energy. It doesn’t matter that it might be visible from her porch or Mr. Egan’s or Mr. Koch’s bedroom window. Even the rich people on Cape Cod will suffer from sea level rise, increasingly strong hurricanes, droughts, food shortages, insect borne diseases, etc.

If B.D. has children, it’s time to think about their future. Wind, solar and other clean, green energy solutions will enable us to leave a safer world for future generations. Our time on this planet is short; let’s think about how we’re treating the Earth.

David G. Tuerck
Executive Director
Beacon Hill Institute

World’s largest manufacturer of wind turbines, Vestas, President and CEO Ditlev Engle stated of the Cape Wind project proposal to the Boston Globe:

“And, therefore, I am really wondering why anybody wants to put them up offshore because it’s twice the price. So just as an outsider, I am just scratching my head saying, “Why?”

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/09/21/the_answers_to_him_are_blowing_in_the_wind/

Senior VP of Vestas Peter Kruse:

“The only way forward is more turbines in virgin ground onshore,” and, “Politicians want offshore so they can avoid the Nimby discussion, but they are allowing a tiny minority to force the rest of the population to pay double for renewable energy.”

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2217931/vestas-calls-greater-focus

“But G.E. no longer makes any offshore turbines, according to Steve Fludder, the head of G.E.’s green business unit who sat down for a wide-ranging interview
with The Times on Wednesday.

G.E. has instead focused its turbine business where it sees the vast majority of demand: on land. Offshore wind, said Mr. Fludder, is “just a vastly costlier proposition — not for us but for the world.”

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/cape-wind-navigates-shifts-in-market/#comment-45839

Hull, MA. is “competing” with Cape Wind seeking 130, 3.6 MW offshore wind turbines, when the Hull plan calls for only 4, and Cape Wind has no source for their spec’d 3.6 MW wind turbines.

The Hull MTC grant provided $1.8 million for related studies, now spent. You have also been awarded $951,000 from the Obama Administration $410 billion spending bill. And, you have learned during this process that the original offshore site is not suitable. You’re seeking another $40 million for construction, and more studies as some may have to be redone.

As you have mentioned Christy Mihos, whom I don’t speak for, I consider that you may have read our op-ed that expresses our frustration as taxpayers continue to fund Cape Wind hardware specific GE 3.6 MW studies being conducting by 17 agencies, over a period of years, to determine the costs v benefits, radar interference, ACHP, USFWS, USCG, FAA, etc., effects of this “discontinued” “prototype” wind turbine.

Multi-millions of taxpayers’ dollars are being wasted on studies related to “discontinued” offshore wind turbines. Time is money and that’s been wasted, too.

For every advantage you may perceive has been delivered by Hull land based WTGs, in bottom line economic terms, it appears that you’re not as progressive as you think you may be.

I don’t wish to insult you, or any Hull resident, but being in favor of an effort is conditioned upon the consideration that benefits will be realized. GE has left the risky business of sea altogether as their offshore wind dream is unrealized.

“Being first isn’t always the best,” Hull Municipal Light Plant operations manager Richard Miller says – especially when it comes to a multi-million-dollar offshore construction project.”

As it stands, Cape Wind and Hull Wind offshore projects are both phantom projects, each burning taxpayer dollars, with no potential return on our investments in sight.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/hull/archive/x1683621822/Permitting-process-slow-going-for-offshore-wind-project-in-Hull

It would be interesting to hear Ms. Durkin and Christy Mihos speak against Hull’s offshore turbines…it’s not Cape Wind, but I wonder if she would present the same points to the citizens of Hull who are obviously in favor of this effort.

This is the model of the future, they have houses so well built that they do not need heating systems.

NY Times

My research reveals the benefits extend to industry and business. While wind energy costs are borne by ratepayers, taxpayers, and wildlife.

You know not what you speak, Nathan Lemmon.

Enron Wind was bought out by GE, and GE’s motto is: “Green is green”.

June 8, 2005 by the Providence Journal (Rhode Island)

‘Hypothetical Future-Value Accounting — The Tragicomedy that was Enron’

http://www.desmogblog.com/enron-type-accounting-used-to-calculate-carbon-offsets
0A

LA Times 1 1/02
General Electric Co. is seeking the refund of almost half the $358 million it paid to an Enron Corp. unit for wind-turbine manufacturing assets, lawyers told a federal bankruptcy judge in New York on Thursday.

E2It’s standard procedure,” said Dennis Murphy, a spokesman for GE Power Systems, who confirmed the company’s refund request.

“Purchasers have certain protections built in. If the purchase price didn’t accurately reflect the value of the asset, we can petition,” he said.”

http://articles.latimes.com/2002/nov/15/business/fi-wind15

‘Report Says Sun and Wind Power Could Threaten Nation’s Electrical Grid’

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/business/10grid.html

‘Blackout puts outdated power grid in spotlight’

“European regulators have launched an enquiry over the power cut that briefly left 10 million people in the dark last week-end. But the outing also raised questions about the grid’s ability to cope with the addition of renewable energy sources.

The outage that left 10 million Europeans without power on 6 November is still=2 0bein g investigated, but some think that the grid’s inability to deal with ever-increasing amounts of wind power might be an explanation.”

http://www.euractiv.com/en/energy/blackout-puts-outdated-power-grid-spotlight/article-159530

The rule of thumb is that offshore wind costs twice as much as onshore wind that cost twice as much as conventional sources of energy.

Please note that most of the studies I cite and provide links for, do not pertain to offshore wind.

Cape Wind is not economically viable even with public subsidies:

http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2009/02/05/2400385-even-rich-nimbys-cant-afford-cape-winds-energy?mode=edit

Cape Wind represents a public safety hazard:

http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2009/05/01/2762454-cape-wind-faa-notice-of-presumed-hazard-

Cape Wind represents immitigable harm to endangered species:

http://bjdurk.newsvine.mobi/_news/2009/03/11/2534556-dear-secretary-salazar-please-do-not-sign-off-on-cape-wind-

You may recall telling me that if I was worried about anything related to Cape Wind, it should be the marine mammals.

Have lead federal Cape Wind reviewing agency, Minerals Management Service, and the U.S. EPA been discredited, too, Seth?

U.S. EPA response (CEQ #20090006) to the MMS Cape Wind MMS Final Environmental Impact Statement of 2/17/09 to MMS James Bennett:

“Alternatives”

“We also noted that discussion about economic viability of the smaller scale project are complex given statements in the DEIS that the proposed project and other sites are not economically viable.”

“In addition, the information contained in the Economic Model in Appendix F remains unchanged.”

Appendix F:

“Given the estimated COST OF ENERGY IS $122/MWh, TWICE THAT OF THE CURRENT MARKET AND THIS IS AFTER THE FULL BENEFIT OF TAX AND RPS INCENTIVES, the prospects of entering a long-term purchase power contract would seem low.”

Source: http://www.mms.gov/offshore/AlternativeEnergy/PDFs/FEIS/Appendix%20F%20-%20Economic_Model.pdf

David Cottingham, Executive Director of the Marine Mammal Commission, the federal agency established under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 2/23/2005 to the USACE Col. Koning:

“There is little doubt that activities associated with the proposed action, particularly the use of pile drivers for tower construction will result in the taking of marine mammals by harassment.”

The truth is outing, Seth.

NY’s energy subsidy, touted as a great boon to us all, has a serious drawback, in my opinion; only the wealthy can now afford to install one.

In order to receive the subsidy, it must be installed by a certified installer. Good idea, but — The cost of the same wind turbine is now 34-35,000 dollars, grid intertied, but the cost installed by a certified installer is 64 – 65,000 dollars. Which is to say, the full amount of the subsidy goes to the installer, none to the one who buys it. Although the benefit to the public of the additional energy that comes from green sources is great, it seems that the primary benefit is to those who install them, a more diffuse benefit to reducing our collective dependence on fossil fuels.

The bill to subsidize wind power was (I’m told) written by the utilities. If that is true, then it makes sense to make individual production of energy a rich man’s game; if the goal is to allow the utilities to control the production of green wind energy, because they are the only ones who can afford it, the bill makes sense.

If renewable energy resources had the government subsidies of the fossil fuel and nuclear industries, we would be generating all of our electricity using solar, wind and geothermal; and our cars would not need gasoline or ethanol.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124104549891270585.html