Cape Wind, a 25 square mile off-shore industrial wind plant proposed for the Nantucket Sound, claims it would reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which places our economy and national security at risk.
Figures from the US Department of Energy show that this is flatly untrue. Only 2% of America's electricity is generated from oil, both foreign and domestic. And that 2% is for things like energy backup generators for hospitals, FAA Air Traffic Control system, portable lighting such as is used by highway resurfacing crews that work at night, etc.
Cape Wind will have absolutely no affect on oil imports or domestic oil production what so ever. And in fact wind power, since it is intermittent, relies on oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydro etc. for back up generation. Cape Wind has shown this to be true with its proposal for a diesel peaker power plant in Chelsea, MA. Of course, there is no mention of that on its website.
Below are Cape Wind’s dishonest claims about its contribution to reduce dependence on foreign oil taken directly from Cape Wind’s website: What they say about oil may be true but what they say about their potential contribution is false. The majority of our oil is used in transportation... and the only way we can reduce that is to come up with alternatives to power our vehicles... wind power will never do that.
“Extracting, transporting and refining oil creates significant environmental risks. Oil spills and ballast cleanouts in routine offloading operations endanger birds and marine life. And although rare, oil tanker spills—like the Exxon Valdez, which released 10.8 million gallons of oil—can foul our beaches and put wildlife at severe risk.
Currently, America relies heavily on foreign oil, a reliance that has steadily increased since the early 1970s. At that time, only about a third of our petroleum came from outside the US. Today more than half of our oil needs are met from foreign sources, and if nothing changes, we will become even more dependent on foreign oil. It is estimated that by the end of the decade 75% of our oil could come from sources outside the US. Relying on a strategic resource controlled by foreign sources puts our country at risk to political pressures and interruption in supply. If we seek to offset this dependence by using new US sites, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, we risk destroying irreplaceable ecosystems.”
Energy Independence
“Since 1973, America has transferred over seven trillion dollars of its wealth to OPEC countries. Our dependence on foreign energy leaves our economy and national security at risk. By harnessing our local wind resources, we can contribute to reducing our dependence on imported energy."
Compare Cape Winds claims with the graphs and figures, to the right of this article, from the US Department of Energy’s annual report (2007) from the US Government’s Energy Information Administration on electrical generation from liquid fuels and petroleum to see just where Cape Wind fits into the generation of electricity from foreign and domestic oil and where it will fit into that same picture in 2030:
The miniscule (< 2%) use of oil to produce energy hardly even registers on the charts.
With this outright distortion and intentional use of fear tactics, one can only wonder just how many other Cape Wind claims are false and simply designed to sell a product with the use of fear-mongering and false advertising.
For more information from the US Government on electrical generation click HERE
To view all images in this article click HERE
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 49
I commented on the transportation by getting current figures from Professor of Economics, Harvard University, and President of the National Bureau of
Economic Research. These remarks were prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the
American Economic Association on December 3, 2003.
it is currently 60% of oil is imported.
By the way, if we go to electric vehicles, how will the vehicles be supplied by electricity if windmills are not being used?
You shun one alternative energy source, but push another. What is one to expect your real position is on oil conservation?
Did I miss your comment concerning the fact that these windmills and three small little energy plants that use waste wood are making double the area's electrical energy use?
What is the axe you have to grind here? Do you have a home with a view of the sound like Ted Kennedy who opposes the wind farm there but is gung ho for it in Buzzards Bay?
The imagination of water does not quench thirst. The thought of fire does
not bestow heat. And the claim to be seeking does not bring one to the
Sought." :)
- Tusi
This is not about wind power in general. It is about false advertising to sell a product.
And PLEASE remember this developer has also proposed another fossil fuel burning power plant.
The point is that no matter what Cape Wind sends into the grid those oil barges will continue to arrive... transportation is growing in its use of petroleum. Do look at the charts again... if you are able to see them.
Living in Europe as I do, I at least have ample experience of wind farms, have studied the actual, real-life reports from the utilities concerning wind farm efficiency, and the conclusion in all cases has been 'wind farms do NOT save on fuel, do NOT reduce CO2 emissions, are NOT reliable, DO destabilize the grid, and are the least useful of any so-called renewable technology.'
Indeed, windfarms do NOT replace any conventional production at all--the conventional plants spin away regardless, just as if no wind farm existed, putting the same amount or more of pollutants into the air.
Wind farms ARE good at one thing, however: they are great at deceiving the gullible because it LOOKS as if they're actually doing something. They're very good at steering taxpayer subsidy into the bank accounts of developers.
So they're good at that, at least. But anyone who studies the European experience---it's readily available--knows that windfarms are a swindle, and those who make the claim that they reduce emissions or save on fuel are liars of the first order who deserve to be prosecuted.
For that reason, wind energy on the grid can not replace other sources. At best, it can reduce the need to use them. But even that is complicated by the problem of wind's intermittency and high variability, requiring those other sources to continue to burn fuel to remain on standby or to run less efficiently or to burn more fuel in more frequent starts and stops and ramping.
You should also know, Randy, that the "nameplate" capacity of a wind turbine is very different from its actual output. Cape Wind's 130 3.6-MW turbines will be rated at 468 MW. Their average annual output will be 20-30% of that. They will generate at or above that average rate only a third of the time (due to the cubic relationship of output to wind speed). Perhaps only a third of that time will their production coincide with actual need on the grid. And then they will still require other plants to burn fuel on standby or burn more fuel to start up again each time the wind dips.
The minuscule potential benefit (a third of a third of a third of its capacity, minus fuel inefficiencies in backup) from this 24-square-mile power plant is obviously not worth the adverse impacts.
Moreover, such claims should be documented, along with all others made by windfarm developers, and then audited by the public and government annually. If such claims are not borne out, the developer should be prosecuted for deceptive practice, just as any other person would be if he offered a commercial product under false claims.
The title of your article implied you were objecting to more than the claims regarding Cape Wind. Futhermore you did not mention heating oil in the article itself and the conversion to electrical heat would require more backup sources even if most of the buildings being heated by electricity utilized solar power.
I agree with you that the saving oil argument from Cape Wind is silly. But that's because oil is not generally used anymore as a fuel for electricity plants. Electricity is mostly generated from coal or natural gas, with a bit of nuclear in many states. So if Cape Wind cranks out electricity, those are the fuels that will not have to be burned. And it is extremely important for us to stop burning coal, even though it is a cheap and convenient fuel.
Dona, you are totally ignoring the issue of global warming here. Why? Don't you watch TV? The only way to deal with the threat of climate change impacting the lives of our great grandchildren is to reduce our CO2 emissions. Coal burning generates more CO2 than any other fuel. To that extent, more windmills and solar panels would be a great thing.
I understand that you are on a crusade here to preserve the scenic beauty of Cape Cod and save a few migratory birds from hitting windmill blades, but I do not sympathize. I am too well informed about climate science to be swayed by your arguments on minor matters. If we continue to ignore the deperate need to deal with global warming, our descendants will spit on our graves. No kidding.
As to fuels that will not have to be burned... not true. Please read Eric J's and Rosa B's comments, they address it well.
This is just another senseless complaint. How do we do away with our dependence on foreign oil? Ride a bike. I don't mean that sarcastically. You parked a "car?" Doesn't it use fuel? The hypocrisy of thinking it's wrong for one person to use an SUV while you drive your car is just wrong. I moved closer to my work and ride a bike. Now, that saves energy and keeps me healthy. Truely, I don't mean to be rude: I just want to understand the reason for such a determined arguement that has little merit.
If you take the fact that these 600,000 people are just part of the total pop of 302 million in this country, and we say that 40 million barrels are used for total electrical use throughout the country, you are still saving 90 thousand barrels annually.
Did you understand the math? ok, then how can you say that the 90thousand barrels of oil is miniscule?
As to cars Carol? That is exactly where the cut needs to come and it can be easily accomplished by first taking those gas guzzlers off the market! No other country in the world drives those gas guzzling cars. It is unconscionable to have our troops dying (for oil) while we refuse to give up our big gas guzzling vehicles, become energy efficient and conserve as in reduce, reuse and recycle. It is shameful. And that is where we are dependent on foreign oil... not for our electricity which IS minuscule in comparison.
What is being talked about in New England is far more serious than a few backup power plants, it is the reinstitution of fuel-oil as feed stock for power plants.
See The Boston Globe October 19, 2005: Romney may ease curbs on power plants
In light of these facts I fail to understand your arguement.
Like many people, you read articles and say they say X when they actually say Y. If you have an antipathy to Cape Wind project in particular it is you should be honest about your motives. They have been honest about theirs: they are doing it for profit, which is a perfectaly honorable and legal motivation.
Also regarding our foreign dependence on oil, just how foreign is the Kingdom of Canada? Our #1 supplier of oil followed by Mexico and Venezuela.
Last but not least, our dependence of foreign oil is of great concern but for a country that represents just a mere 4% of the worlds population burning up 40% of the worlds energy and wanting even more is irresponsible. Wind power, for that matter any alternative source of energy is a miniscule but necessary start.
There is a huge divide in the so called environmental movement... it is conservationists (dwindling like wildlife and their habitats) vs. the so called environmentalists or as they like to call themselves The Greenies. As shown by many comments on this post, they would rather get to the bottom of the barrel and fight over that 2% for industry, developers and Corporate America than tackle the 98% which would require personal change on their part. And who wins? Corporate America, developers and industry. It is called divide and conquer and Corporate America has done it well.
Industrial wind farms kill wildlife, their habitats and have little to no affect on our energy needs. In fact they are merely feel good symbols of 'don't worry you won't have to change a thing' Big Brother is taking care of it for you. Whereas conservation is not a symbol but an action and it could and would provide immediate solutions and benefits in all ways.
Conservation is the key and we all know it but it requires people to care enough to do it on a personal level. And the Greenies would rather talk the talk but not walk the walk. You know, someone else can walk it.... and in the case of industrial wind farms it is the voiceless who are made to sacrifice their very lives so people can avoid having to make one little change in theirs.
NEVER in the history of this country have people lived the high life while their soldiers were dying (in this case for oil). It simply boggles my mind. And it disgusts me.
The developer should string up their marketing firm for obvious stretch - attempting to garner support via the low-hanging-fruit "foreign oil turban-head" argument. It's a stretch, but I didn't see the context of their marketing program, so I can't entirely judge whether they're making their case via other points.
I'm sure you've got more than that one misleading bulletpoint issue to fight a wind energy farm off the Cape, right? That's a blip on Low-level Manager's radar screen.
The return to fossil fuel option is strong, and it seems Eric J might have some more meaty and concerning evidence for you to employ in your argument, making this one a bulletpoint-where it belongs.
It's a very FAIR question to ask though. Makes folks think. Careful with your headlines though, OK?
I never read an article so narrow-minded and short-sighted in my life...
As to reading more on the subject... the more you read the less you see industrial wind farms as a good solution and the environmental downside a huge.
That's apparently from the International Energy Agency, which is quite biased in favor of wind.
As we move more to electric cars, in all their various forms, and as we move away from coal-fired electric plants, we will find that wind, solar, geothermal and hydroelectric power are our cleanest choices for generating power. That doesn't mean we should build clean power plants in the middle of the Grand Canyon, but tell that to the current President, who is still trying to make sure our National Parks and Forests are gouged and scarred by the attempted extraction of shale oil.
I think the group of people involved in this post who are confused need to take a fresh look at things. Perhaps you'd like to look at the issues on my blog, Chemistry for a sustainable world. Thanks to the rest for keeping the record straight.