Whirl Wind

Last Monday as the sun rose over New England, tugboats pulled barges laden with scientific instruments and building materials to a spot in Nantucket Sound 11 miles off the coast of Cape Cod. If the weather cooperates, by the end of November, a 197-foot tall scientific data tower will stand alone on Horseshoe Shoal monitoring the weather and the ocean that surrounds it. The construction of the tower marks the first victory in a series of hurdles faced by Cape Wind Associates, an energy company that has plans to build a 170-turbine wind farm on this site.

But with every winner, there are also losers. Proponents say that the installation of the tower will reduce dependence on fossil fuels and reduce harmful emissions. Opponents argue that in addition to the local environmental issues, private developers are trying to take advantage of a public resource by strategically placing their projects to avoid local regulations. In the end, Cape Wind is pitting environmentalists against each other.

At the center of the debate is a mammoth offshore wind energy farm — the nation’s first — and a 28-square mile patch of the Outer Continental Shelf. The area lies in federal waters just beyond 3-mile jurisdiction boundary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and no federal regulations exist for the development of renewable energies in this region.

Today, just about the only resource development taking place on the Outer Continental Shelf is oil and natural gas drilling. To pursue their offshore activities, these industries lease portions of the shelf from the federal government, explained Stephen Burrington, of the Conservation Law Foundation, at a meeting in Hyannis, Mass. Saturday. However, no such agreement exists for wind energy farms or other renewable energies. In essence, Cape Wind Associates, the project’s backers, would be using the wind for free.

Before the project gets the go-ahead, the US Army Corps of Engineers, in partnership with the state’s Office of Environmental Affairs, is conducting a thorough review of the environmental issues that the project faces. A draft of the Environmental Impact Statement should be available by the beginning of next year.

According to the federal Rivers and Harbors Act, the Army Corps of Engineers must approve permits for work in U.S. waters.

But some opponents believe the Army Corps is operating outside its jurisdiction and Congress should get involved.

“If we’re serious about incorporating wind energy into our National Energy Policy, then Congress must act,” said Isaac Rosen, the president of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. ” Otherwise, it will be the private corporations that will take up the resources, and that is an atrocious way to managing coastal development.”

The move from land-based wind farms to offshore ones is strategic. Although mountain passes and the wide-open plains are windy, the wind in coastal regions is more constant and often more powerful, which places Cape Cod near the top of the list of ideal sites. James Gordon, the president of Cape Wind Associates, said the company chose the site because it has some of the strongest wind resources in the US.

“It’s a perfect location,” said Christene Woerlen, a doctoral candidate in the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Boston University and an expert on renewable energies and wind turbines. “You need them comparatively close to land and to be in shallow waters.”

Woerlen added that it is only a matter of time before other renewable energy industries are clambering for access to the continental shelf in the United States: as technology improves offshore wave and tidal streams may be used to generate electricity.

In addition to the larger regulatory issues, said the Alliance’s Rosen, there are site-specific problems. Air traffic controllers fear that Nantucket Sound could become an obstacle course for pilots; fishermen worry that their livelihood will be restricted once again, and the towers will endanger breeding grounds and migration for squid, summer flounder and sea bass. Three endangered species of sea turtle — the loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley and the leatherback inhabit the Sound during the summer months and stay well into the fall. There are also the bird migratory routes to consider.

“No environmental impact studies have been done on Nantucket Sound,” Rosen said. “You can’t extrapolate from other sites.”

He said he supports Fish and Wildlife Services’ proposal to do a comprehensive three-year study on the region.

Other sites, such as those in Denmark, suggest that the towers’ cement footings actually encourage the growth of marine life.

Wind energy is the world’s fastest growing energy source. Improvements in turbine and blade design, falling costs and government incentives have dropped the cost of energy more than 80 percent in the last 20 years.

“It’s becoming economically viable, and there are many great places for wind turbines in the U.S.,” Woerlen said

She added that she expects utility-sized offshore wind farms to sprout up over the west coast and along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico.

Economics aside, there are visible advantages to wind farms. The blades harness the energy of the wind and a generator converts it into electricity. It is pollution-free alternative to our current methods of electricity production.

In the U.S., fossil fuels are still at the center of our power generating industry. Coal, the most significant source of carbon dioxide, generates more than half of electricity — oil another three percent.

In 2001, almost 1,700 megawatts (MW) of new wind generating equipment were installed in 16 states. Most of those turbines sprang up in oil-rich Texas of all places, but all of them were located on land.

“On average, it will supply 170 MW — half the Cape and the Islands with electricity,” Gordon said. “At peak capacity, supply will approach half a million homes.”

While offshore wind energy may be in its embryonic stages in the New England region, on the other side of the Atlantic, the spindly towers are sprouting up along the coasts of northern Europe. According to the Environmental News Service, existing offshore capacity in Europe is only 86 MW, but another 3,000 MW should be in place in Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom by 2005.

Most of Europe’s offshore wind energy is generated by a single wind farm called Middelgrunden, which lies off the coast of Copenhagen, the capital of Denmark. Compared to the proposed Cape Wind project, Middelgrunden is quite small. Its twenty turbines lie in an arc along Copenhagen’s harbor like a white picket fence. Using the powerful North Sea winds, the turbines generate over 90 million kilowatt hours of electricity per year, providing about 20,000 of the city’s 1.7 million residents with power. But anyone walking along Copenhagen’s shores is aware of their presence: Middelgrunden’s 200-foot tall towers are a mere 2 miles from the water’s edge.

Visibility is exactly what worries many of the Cape’s residents. Used to postcard sunsets, some of the wind farm’s opponents say that a 170-turbine wind park will destroy the natural beauty of Horseshoe Shoals. With the blades mounted, each turbine will measure 426 feet and lie not less than four miles from land.

Cape Wind Associates’ Gordon said he doubts the towers will be visible from shore. Others are more skeptical.

Rosen, said many Alliance supporters are worried about the esthetic of the project and how it will affect tourism.

“People come to Cape Cod to get away from business and machinery,” he said.

While many protesters appear to be a vocal and affluent group of Cape area residents worried about their recreation activities, property values and ocean views, Rosen offers another point of view, one where people who support renewable energy are willing to wait to make sure it is carried out correctly.

“NIMBY-ism (not in my backyard) can be good in that it upholds the things a community values most,” he said.