n Your editorial on the Cape Wind project dismissing concerns about the growing size of the steel towers (now 440 feet) as little more than a snobbish reaction by wealthy oceanfront homeowners is an uninformed attack on the legitimate concerns of thousands of Cape and Island residents and visitors (“No spin zone,” Oct. 16, p. 6).
Consider that this project is opposed by the regional ferry operators and airports, the Cape Cod and Nantucket Chambers of Commerce and most towns on the Cape and Islands.
Beyond legitimate aesthetic concerns, this industrial blight on the horizon is considered a navigational hazard by the commercial ferries that carry more than 3 million passengers a year to and from Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard.
In addition, all three regional airports oppose this project because they believe it poses risks to air traffic safety. If this 24-square-mile grid were constructed, commercial fishermen, who rely on the proposed site for more than half their catch, say they would be cripplingly restricted in their access to these fish-fertile waters.
Many of the Chambers of Commerce also oppose this project as a threat to the Cape and Islands’ $2 billion tourism economy.
Furthermore, a study done for the developer shows a more than 90 percent chance that 40,000 gallons of transformer oil would reach Cape and Islands’ beaches — in as little as 5 hours — if storage tanks on the 10-story substation that is part of this industrial complex were breached or ruptured. Perhaps above all, the recent report from the Department of Defense dismissed a prior radar analysis of Cape Wind’s impact on the early warning radar located on Cape Cod as “overly simplified and technically flawed” and called for new studies to assess whether Cape Wind would compromise military radar.
While the promise of clean electricity is alluring, we must be prudent when industrializing a fragile environment — especially when that industrialization poses serious threats to essential ecosystems, the economy, public safety, and potentially, national security.
Moreover, those only concerned with their electric bills should be aware that taxpayers will pay handsomely for this project — more than $1 billion in public subsidies and tax credits. Thanks to land based and deeper water alternatives, as well as all the potential we have to reduce demand, we can secure our energy future without sacrificing Nantucket Sound and all that it means to the Cape and Islands.
Saying no to Cape Wind — an ill conceived example of corporate greed at the public’s expense — is not saying no to renewable energy. It’s simply saying no to a terrible location for the world’s largest offshore wind project.
What we need is a coordinated and planned approach to developing renewable energy that puts the interest of the citizenry above that of the developer and sets standards for where projects of this magnitude can be most appropriately sited.
Charles Vinick
Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, President and CEO