Cape Wind offshore power project is dead in the water

John Droz writes:

Artist rendition of the Cape Wind power farm from 2009
The developer for the large proposed offshore Cape Wind project officially threw in the towel. This story has yet to be picked up by major media outlets, but this excellent news is the direct result of some fifteen (15±) years of hard work, dedication and financial donations by a lot of good people.

Energy Management Inc. has ceased efforts to build what was once expected to become the first offshore wind farm in the U.S., according to an emailed statement from Chief Executive Officer Jim Gordon. The project’s Boston-based developer has already notified the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management that it has terminated the offshore wind development lease it received in 2010.

Cape Wind suffered a slow death. Efforts to develop the 468-megawatt offshore farm, proposed to supply power to Cape Cod and the islands of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket, began in 2001 but came up against relentless opposition from a mix of strange bedfellows including the Kennedy family and billionaire industrialist William Koch. While Energy Management won several court battles, the project couldn’t survive the 2015 cancellation of contracts to sell its power to local utilities.
Kudos to our friends at Save Our Sound who led this fight. Hopefully by the time the Newsletter comes out there will be a detailed, accurate account about this interesting saga — which I’ll then pass on. We believe that much of what was learned here can be applied to other wind projects, onshore and offshore.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 3, 2017 9:18 am

Excellent news. Good!

Reply to  John
December 3, 2017 9:43 am

After the most recent Kennedy assassination, it’s now called Martha’s Graveyard 😉

Reply to  Greg
December 3, 2017 11:44 am

Ode to Obama, Deval Patrick, Paul Gaynor, Brian Caffyn, Patrick Wood and the rest of the sleaze bags.

The good folks like Barb who worked for years to prevent this, who presented evidence to the useless authorities are to be commended. We are still watching these p-icks and will shut em down again.


M Seward
Reply to  John
December 3, 2017 3:32 pm

+ 1000 !

What is truly bizarre about this utterly disgusting, ugly, bird slaughtering environmental abomination of a WOFTAM is that it is apperently justified on the basis of helping to save the environment. I am not fan of US gun laws but this makes bump stocks being legal seem a trivial matter. This is like turning the neighbourhood streets into a free fire zone.

Reply to  M Seward
December 4, 2017 1:42 am

It would not have affected the local birds.

Reply to  M Seward
December 4, 2017 2:46 am

Yeah Griff, and guns don’t kill people, people do, eh?

Reply to  M Seward
December 4, 2017 4:54 pm

CBC-Radio Canada, c.Dec.4, 2017

‘Au Pays De’eau Noire’

Re: Contaminated water wells and wind turbines, Ontario, Canada

Article includes photos. The photos say a lot about this situation?

For an English translation Google:

‘Eoliennes: Au pays de l’eau noire/ICI’

December 3, 2017 9:20 am

What do you call 468 MWH of intermittent, unreliable junk at the bottom of the ocean?

A good start.

Tom Harley
Reply to  ClimateOtter
December 3, 2017 6:08 pm

Artificial reef.

Louis Hooffstetter
Reply to  ClimateOtter
December 3, 2017 6:11 pm

And a good artificial reef?

Louis Hooffstetter
Reply to  Louis Hooffstetter
December 3, 2017 6:11 pm

Tom, you beat me to it by one second!

December 3, 2017 9:23 am

Oh, well, we can always find another spot with no billionaire cottages within view.

Reply to  texasjimbrock
December 3, 2017 9:25 am

Suggestion for “…another spot.”


Reply to  texasjimbrock
December 3, 2017 10:35 am

NIMBY – always works for rich folks. Am sure they will find somewhere where they can shaft some poorer people – its the Warmist Way.

Reply to  Vladimir (@leninsghost)
December 3, 2017 3:49 pm

this ridiculous wind farm – making expensive electricity IS what was shafting the poor people you fool

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Vladimir (@leninsghost)
December 4, 2017 12:19 am

Indeed, it is similar in the UK, where “green” Prince Charles forbids any windmill on royal land (which they have plenty…).

Nigel S
Reply to  Vladimir (@leninsghost)
December 4, 2017 5:12 am

Ferdinand Engelbeen December 4, 2017 at 12:19 am All the offshore windmills are on Crown land, they are coining it!

Nigel S
Reply to  Vladimir (@leninsghost)
December 4, 2017 5:13 am

The Crown is the prima facie owner of foreshore, or land between mean high water and mean low water, by virtue of prerogative right. … The same applies to seabed, being land below mean low water.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Vladimir (@leninsghost)
December 4, 2017 7:01 am

Nigel S,

Indeed, they don’t oppose off-shore, but heaven forbid any disturbance of their view over their domains on land:

On the other hand, they profit from off-shore wind farms:
The Crown Estate owns a £1.1 billion offshore energy empire which includes 30 wind farms.

December 3, 2017 9:24 am

The artists impression, is unimpressive.
Normally the sea surface is not tranquil when wind is blowing, especially at a rate required by wind turbines.
Have another go.

Reply to  Ozonebust
December 3, 2017 9:59 am

How can you tell if the turbines are turning or not? There’s no indication thereof. The ocean can tranquil and nothing produced. That’s why we call this “intermittant”.

Reply to  Sheri
December 3, 2017 10:12 am


How can you tell if the turbines are turning or not? There’s no indication thereof. The ocean can tranquil and nothing produced. That’s why we call this “intermittant”.

Better (from their vantage point of propaganda for windmills) is the “fact” that a very, very light wind will turn the turbine (thus appearing to making useful power) but no actual positive power can be produced until the average wind speed is above 5-6 knots at turbine height. Worse, from the econoic viewpoint of trying to PAY for the tax-credit chasing political donors who push these projects, is that even if some small power is being produced, the windmill itself is not at nameplate power until much much higher (15 to 22 knots steady average with few gusts). Then, when it does get windy enough to really make useful power for a few hours (22 to 30+ knots), the turbines have to be feathered to prevent high-speed/overspeed damage.

Net? 15% to 19% nameplate power over a full year, even though they may be turning 85% of the time.

Reply to  Sheri
December 3, 2017 11:29 am

Most of the windmill farms I have seen have a significant number of windmills with stationary blades even during brisk winds. On enquiry I was told they were “under maintenance.” I guess that, like a car, they do need to be stopped for regular maintnence, but most of the stationary ones I have seen seemed to be under repair. So, does anyone know the percentage of non-operative units there are in a typical windfarm, and is this non-productivity and cost (productionand lost opportunity) taken into account when assessing the economic viability of the farm? I do know that unlike nuclear, decommissioning costs are not allowed for even though the decommissioning of a wind farm will be no trivial matter.

Reply to  Sheri
December 3, 2017 1:51 pm

Well, ideally wind turbines would be turning 100% of the time whether they’re generating power or not. Otherwise the suckers paying for these things might start asking some questions.

george e. smith
Reply to  Sheri
December 3, 2017 3:30 pm


You are not up on your wind farmistry.

It is for 97% dead sure that the wind is NOT blowing, so those tranquil seas are real.

When the wind is blowing ALL of those fans are phase-locked so all the fan blades would be in the same angles.


Leo Smith
Reply to  Sheri
December 3, 2017 4:20 pm


Reply to  Sheri
December 4, 2017 3:51 am

Griff knows when they are turning.
Griff is someone to behold!!!

Reply to  Ozonebust
December 3, 2017 11:41 am

Not so much true. I’ve sailed a these waters quite a bit. A moderate breeze of 10 kt will power these turbines and not kick up much chop. There are rather significant tidal currents in Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard sounds that contribute to keep the chop at bay.
As I recall these were to be located on some shoals, so I might expect local shallows to produce a bit more wave action at their bases.

Reply to  rocketscientist
December 3, 2017 3:47 pm

Wind turbines are rated against the wind speed at which its generator will be able to produce its full rated, or nameplate, capacity, (which is nominally 1.5 MW in in use models designed for on-shore use).

The rated nameplate wind speed is usually around 30 mph.

The turbine has a minimum wind speed at which it will begin producing minimal power, typically around 10 mph. The power output rises in a cubic relation to the wind speed. That is, if the wind speed doubles, the power output is able to increase eight fold. If the average wind speed of a site is 15 mph (half of the rated wind speed), the average power output will be one eighth of the nameplate capacity, or less than 200 KW.

Reply to  rocketscientist
December 4, 2017 10:10 am

the latest generation of offshore turbines in europe require 20 mph winds to be generating any meaningful power.

Reply to  Ozonebust
December 9, 2017 7:35 pm

I’m guessing that was the point…no wind…..

Bill Powers
December 3, 2017 9:26 am


When you try to pee in rich peoples Wheaties they hand you your peepee.

December 3, 2017 9:33 am

The writing o the wall.
I strongly suspect the company apprehends the loss of federal gov’t support, meaning subsidies and graft etc., resulting from the present administration’s policies as sufficient motivation to pull the plug.
Nowhere to hide or cover the losses associated with the uncompetitive green energy paradigm.

Reply to  getitright
December 3, 2017 10:17 am

That was my first thought too. Remove the subsidies and the public acceptance of Obama era skyrocketing energy costs and it’s over. Add in some pressure from wealthy objectors and the general realisation that people don’t want the view turned into a wildlife-destroying industrial hellscape and it’s definitely adios. Something to really celebrate. The poor long-suffering rational souls in South Australia must be green with envy.

Rhoda R
Reply to  cephus0
December 3, 2017 3:54 pm

The sponsors of this nightmare will just find some pristine area in fly-over country to visually pollute – and since it’s just fly-over country no one important will object.

Warren Blair
Reply to  getitright
December 3, 2017 2:05 pm

Yes our first thought as well!
Thanks to Trump the USA will likely skip the worst of renewables theft, waste and corruption currently being paid for by decent hard-working people Worldwide.
South Australia ‘renewables World leader’ and the Australian NEM big three now have the highest base (ex tax) electricity prices in the World.

F. Leghorn
December 3, 2017 9:37 am

There is a good side to offshore windfarms. Dead seagulls.

But seriously, I wish this one had been built. Having one of these useless monstrosities disrupting life in a ridiculously rich, leftist stronghold like Cape Cod might have opened a few eyes. At the very least it would have annoyed them as they had to sail way around the “farm”.

R.S. Brown
Reply to  F. Leghorn
December 3, 2017 11:11 am


There are NO good seagull recipes in any cookbook I’ve ever seen.

…and my wife has several thousand cookbooks going back to the 1850’s.

Reply to  R.S. Brown
December 3, 2017 11:45 am

So the shite-hawks will feed the fishes.
My heart pumps great gobs of purple poo for them.

Yes, I hate seagulls.
They dump all over newly painted decks – with no provocation at all.


Eric Harpham
Reply to  R.S. Brown
December 3, 2017 12:34 pm

Whilst on holiday in Wales (Anglesey) we asked the question of Google, “Why don’t we eat seagulls?” and the answer came back, “Because they smell and taste like rotting fish!” Hence no recipes in cook books. Please note I haven’t tried to check this fact by eating one but if anybody would like to………

Reply to  R.S. Brown
December 3, 2017 1:04 pm

Here is a recipe for seagulls. Took five seconds to enter search operand, hit enter and voila:

Reply to  R.S. Brown
December 3, 2017 1:07 pm

Eric Harpham

What a great Google question!

I’m racking my brains to think of any seabirds humans eat, can’t think of any.

Mind you on UK coasts, I’m quite sure seagulls would taste of chips and ice cream.


Reply to  R.S. Brown
December 3, 2017 1:08 pm


Gosh, you’re clever.

Reply to  R.S. Brown
December 3, 2017 2:25 pm

Humans have eaten lots of sea fowl, some to extinction, eg the great auk.

Drake reprts taking on board a very large amounts of foule(sic) that the Welsh call penguin during his circumnavigation.

Reply to  R.S. Brown
December 3, 2017 3:39 pm

Muttonbirds (Shearwaters or Petrels) are a favourite delicacy of Aborigines in Tasmania and Maori in New Zealand.
Opinion seems divided as to their taste, but I have seen them on sale so they can’t be all that bad.

Leo Smith
Reply to  R.S. Brown
December 3, 2017 4:21 pm

All the estuarine and seagoing ducks make great eating

Dr K.A. Rodgers
Reply to  R.S. Brown
December 3, 2017 4:58 pm

Muttonbird: Roast as for chicken, take into bathroom, strip naked, eat in empty bath, wash self, bath and walls with copious soap/detergent after dining. Helps to have empty rubbish container and hair shampoo to hand.

Reply to  R.S. Brown
December 3, 2017 5:07 pm

RayG, Is it like the cockatoo recipe? Throw it into a pot of boiling water with a rock. When the rock gets soft, throw away the cockatoo and eat the rock.

Reply to  R.S. Brown
December 4, 2017 3:23 am

OK, so seagulls smell and taste like rotting fish. What do the dump scavengers smell and taste like? Are those that live on chips [french fries] any better? They are so tame you could catch them by hand.
They really are the rats of the air.

Nigel S
Reply to  R.S. Brown
December 4, 2017 5:18 am

Seagulls on dumps are healthier because they avoid the parasites adapted to them in the marine environment (as related to me by a researcher in this field).

Reply to  F. Leghorn
December 4, 2017 1:46 am

Alas, no.

Sea bird movements tend to be in defined ‘corridors’ along and in sight of the coasts, or there are particular wintering areas or there are frequently used feeding areas.

any competent planning process – such as in the UK or EU – does a year long independent survey and does not place a windfarm where the birds would be affected (in the type of areas I have detailed).

The detailed long running research conducted on Danish offshore windfarms – which are also on a migration route from Scandinavia – shows less that 1 in 250,000 passing sea birds would suffer impact with a wind turbine

F. Leghorn
Reply to  Griff
December 4, 2017 4:35 am

Thank you for reassuring me that the windfarms won’t kill flocks of wonderful seagulls.

But I still have to say – even if you save every one of those Satanic ratbirds wind energy is still a massive waste of human resources.

Reply to  Griff
December 4, 2017 5:49 am

Kill by windmills: Birds and bats do not need to be hit by the blade to die or be injured and die later. The sudden change of air pressure when passing between blades does that also.

Steve Zell
Reply to  Griff
December 4, 2017 9:40 am

Wind turbines kill a lot of predatory birds (including seagulls) because the generator boxes seem like attractive nesting sites for predatory birds–the nest is on a flat surface, they get a bird’s-eye view of prey, and don’t have to worry about the nest swaying in the wind like when they build nests in trees.

The problem comes when the birds take off from the nest to go hunting–against the wind in order to get better wing lift (as airplane pilots do). Since a wind turbine is vaned to always face into the wind, a bird taking off from the (downwind) generator box against the wind has to fly through the path of the turbine blades. One ill-timed takeoff during a strong wind and it’s bye-bye birdie!

Reply to  Griff
December 5, 2017 7:25 am

Sea birds do migrate by defined “corridors” but those corridors can shift depending on weather at the time they migrate. However, much of the time they are hunting for fish. Fish are attracted to vertical and floating object in the water. Tall no moving towers kill thousands of birds, moving “towers” kill even more. You just cannot defend the bird kill from wind turbines or tall towers, it is a fact. Also out in the ocean how would they possibly know how many birds were killed without special equipment since they land in the water.

Reply to  Griff
December 5, 2017 4:46 pm


December 3, 2017 9:37 am

So… you have to be an elitist billionaire to succesffully fight the installation of these “eyesores on a stick.” It makes me sad at how many scenic vistas have been destroyed with these ugly machines and their transmission lines.

Reply to  Stu
December 3, 2017 9:45 am

Yes, one can imagine the Green Scream if all those pylons were ‘nodding donkeys’ pulling up oil.

Steve Case
Reply to  Stu
December 3, 2017 9:49 am

It makes me sad at how many scenic vistas have been destroyed with these ugly machines and their transmission lines.

Their transmission lines are puny for the simple reason that they don’t put out all that much power. Well really, the next time you’re out in the country passing by one of these eye sores, take a good look at the transmission lines – if you can find them – and compare to those from a real power plant.

Reply to  Steve Case
December 3, 2017 10:01 am

Power company claims they bury the lines. You won’t see them in many cases.

Johannes Herbst
Reply to  Steve Case
December 3, 2017 10:20 am

In Germany, buried lines are seven-fold as expensive as normal ones.

We will get them, and we will have to pay for them.

Reply to  Steve Case
December 3, 2017 11:34 am

What about all the roads needed between towers for construction and servicing. Now that is a real blight on the landscape. Also those are not ordinary roads, built to allow the transport of huge cranes.

Reply to  Steve Case
December 4, 2017 3:30 am

“What about all the roads needed between towers for construction and servicing. Now that is a real blight on the landscape.”
In google earth zoom in on Texas near the corner of New Mexico, There doesn’t look like there is enough room between the roads and well heads to have a bean patch.

Matt Bergin
Reply to  Steve Case
December 4, 2017 3:55 am

That is exactly right Steve. I am an electrician and I tell my coworkers when they talk about how great solar PV is for them to check the size of the conduit carrying the power down the pedestal from the solar cells. When they see how small the conduit is it really points out how little power they produce. The largest of them use a 1″ conduit. That is half the diameter of the one that feeds your house. Not very much power there.

Nigel S
Reply to  Steve Case
December 4, 2017 5:26 am

Sheri December 3, 2017 at 10:01 am The junction of the cables from London Array and Kentish Flats is now a navigation hazard awash at low tide in the middle of a safe inshore passage for small boats.

Reply to  Stu
December 3, 2017 10:03 am

Probably a billionaire. Millionaires have lost the case and had these land turbines pushed through in spite of having lawyers and money. Wind companies are ruthless. They will destroy anyone who gets in their way, if there is any way possible to do it.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Stu
December 3, 2017 10:08 am

Stu. Just shows how hypocritical these rich lefties are.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Stu
December 3, 2017 12:10 pm

Eco-Prayer Wheels.


Reply to  Stu
December 3, 2017 4:37 pm

I am mildly amused by the fact that some of the objectors would be all in favour if the wind farm was sited anywhere else. Perhaps that needs to be the first test. “Are you prepared to have it on your front door?” asked of the executives of any of the companies proposing this stuff. ” If the answer is no then it cannot be built anywhere.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Quilter52
December 4, 2017 11:39 am

Yes, exactly. The basis of the prevention of this wind farm should be used as a model to reject every other one proposed.

December 3, 2017 9:49 am

Britain is the worlds leader in offshore wind power and the location of these installations can be seen in the linked map

I take the view that our elites are determined to use renewable energy and these things do for less damage off shore than they do on shore, or through the use of solar power which is woefully inefficient at our latitude.

I couldn’t see from the article why the project failed. Was it for technical reasons or because a load of oligarchs didn’t want their views spoilt. Can anyone clarify?


John F. Hultquist
Reply to  climatereason
December 3, 2017 11:02 am

Seems the sales loss is the trigger, but the cause is more complicated.
“Two of its biggest customers have abandoned contracts to buy power from the wind farm.”
Cape Wind spokesperson Mark Rodgers acknowledges they did not meet a December 31 construction deadline, which prompted the contract terminations, but Rodgers says the delay was unavoidable. He blames the Alliance for stymieing Cape Wind’s progress by delaying its construction through regulatory and court battles.

That’s from Jan. 2015

Gunga Din
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
December 3, 2017 2:23 pm

“He blames the Alliance for stymieing Cape Wind’s progress by delaying its construction through regulatory and court battles.”

Sounds familiar. Enviros use regulations and court battles. That’s why we don’t have more nuclear and coal power plants. They are beneficial.
Windmills? Not so much. Nice to see “what goes around comes around”.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  climatereason
December 3, 2017 12:13 pm

The famous Kennedy Family led the charge against this project. they own property in the viewshed.

Other oligarchs with houses on the water objected as well.

Nimbyism works when the backyards are owned by the rich and powerful.

george e. smith
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
December 3, 2017 3:35 pm

It’s called a “Compound”.


December 3, 2017 9:50 am

When do they ALL fall down?

Reply to  chowgirl
December 3, 2017 6:09 pm

It will take a concerted effort to force the dismantling of these turbines. First we have to get them turned off:

Reply to  chowgirl
December 4, 2017 1:47 am

They don’t.

google the number of currently installed turbines in a country then search for failed turbines over the previous decade.

F. Leghorn
Reply to  Griff
December 4, 2017 5:23 am

They don’t what? Fall down? How silly. Please come up with better bs before people start to think there is something wrong with you.

Reply to  Griff
December 5, 2017 4:47 pm

More lies, Grifter?

You just can’t help it, can you?

Have you no shame?

December 3, 2017 9:54 am

.10/kh or .45/kh? Good choice.

December 3, 2017 10:13 am

NIMBY takes on a whole new power when rich people are affected.

December 3, 2017 10:14 am

468 MW of offshore wind generally amounts to 150MW or less of average output. That’s less than
30% of the output of a small modular molten salt nuclear reactor that not only can operate as a baseline generator, but a peak load generator as well, and requires a few acres of land and can be virtually hidden from view and does not require a source of cooling water. On the other hand, varying and unreliable wind input to the grid is a pain in the butt, requiring extra expenses and increasing the per unit cost of reliable power generation. Other than that…

Reply to  arthur4563
December 3, 2017 11:19 am

Small modular molten salt nuclear reactors don’t exist.

Reply to  François
December 4, 2017 1:49 am

Though the UK govt just announced funding for SMRs (though not molten salt ones – that’s a different tech)

The earliest one could be deployed if research successful is apparently in the 2030s -same date range as I’ve seen for Chines molten salt reactor…

Until then, we should build offshore wind farms.

Reply to  François
December 5, 2017 4:49 pm

“Until then, we should build offshore wind farms.”

No we shouldn’t.

Have you apologised to Dr. Crockford yet?

Reply to  arthur4563
December 3, 2017 11:38 am

Where is this fabulous machine running, arthur? Oh, you completely made it up.

Reply to  Gamecock
December 3, 2017 7:15 pm

“The Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment was an experimental molten salt reactor at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory researching this technology through the 1960s; constructed by 1964, it went critical in 1965 and was operated until 1969.”
It was a successful experiment and demonstrated that the reactor system was functional, effective, and safe. One comment from an operator to the effect of “nothing happens, it just runs. We just shut if off at the end of a run”.
The experiment was stopped because the powers that be wanted a liquid metal fast breeder for plutonium production for bombs. That didn’t happen, although the bombs were made. The molten salt reactor system apparently is much good for plutonium production due to contamination of very small amounts of other nuclides that poison the plutonium for fission and are hard to separate.

Reply to  arthur4563
December 3, 2017 12:18 pm

Molten salt technology? I seem to remember it was abandoned in the sixties due to corrosion problems.

F. Leghorn
Reply to  Gerontius
December 4, 2017 5:40 am

Molten salt reactors are a viable technology. The corrosion issues are solved. Plus they can be turned off, ramped up or down with demand and there is zero danger of an explosion. If it leaks the salt is contained and the reaction stops, so meltdowns are impossible (and “easily” repairable) Also they can be pretty much any size, to power a city or a neighborhood.

Politics are the only thing preventing this technology. So I guess it’ll never happen. 😳 shame 😳

Reply to  arthur4563
December 3, 2017 12:37 pm

“That’s less than 30% of the output of a s …”

Output is the same, zero!

Your dog don’t hunt.

People discuss things like they are real and not something they read about on the internet.

Smart Rock
Reply to  arthur4563
December 3, 2017 1:11 pm

Where can I buy one, Arthur?

Reply to  arthur4563
December 3, 2017 1:13 pm


I’ll bet you wish you hadn’t said that.

george e. smith
Reply to  arthur4563
December 3, 2017 3:37 pm

Where can I see electricity from this molten salt reactor in operation ??


December 3, 2017 10:16 am

A copper-bottomed argument against subsidising wind power in places like New York is that they are at imminent risk of flooding, because of the ravages of … Climate Change (as in that movie), therefore every spare cent should be spent on improving flood resilience. Another angle: if money is wasted on vanity projects then there must be no problem from Climate Change.

December 3, 2017 10:19 am

There are already two turbines in Falmouth, Mass, which is right next door to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, which is right across the channel from Martha’s Vineyard. They’ve been shutdown.

U.S. Judges : Shut Down Nuisance Falmouth Wind Turbines USA Update 8/23/2017

Reply to  icisil
December 3, 2017 11:35 am

Thanks for the link, icisil.

Here’s an except from the article:

“The first [windmill] was shut in September of 2015 the other in June of 2017 both turbines are Vestas V-82 type 1.65 megawatt wind turbines. The turbines, Falmouth Wind I and II were installed between 2010 and 2012.

The Vestas turbines were built on a platform of the NEG Micon NM-82 type 1.65 megawatt wind turbine. Both turbines generate a chest pounding 110 decibels of noise or what can be described as a hard rock band playing 24/7.”

How would you like to live near something like that every day.

People who think windmills are the powerplant of the future are insane.

Reply to  TA
December 3, 2017 2:47 pm

2 incidents in the last few months from the Caithness windfarm forum , accident list
-“”Massachusetts wind turbines: A Trail of Bloody Tears”.
In Falmouth, up to 200 residents have suffered serious
medical detriments and a huge loss of quality of life
from the noise impacts of the wind turbines. Residents
regularly have to move to their basements to get away
from the noise. Media outlets fail to report suicides,
healtth problems and property devaluations resulting
from nearby wind turbines. One resident committed
suicide in February 2016 after he simply could not take
the noise and impact any more.”-

Victoria (Australia)
-“”Farmer may be gone with the wind farm and do a blade
runner”. Report on farmer Paul Lewis, who considers
himself lucky if he has a night when he’s not woken by
wind turbine noise. The Victorian goverment has
passed controversial new planning laws to support
ambitious renewable energy targets, which strips
communities the right to object to, or oppose,
modifications to existing projects. Mr Lewis says he will
have to move away if any more turbines are put up
close to him”-
And numerous other incidents
Notice how in some cases local administrators give priority to developer’s profits over residents’ health .

Leo Smith
Reply to  TA
December 3, 2017 4:24 pm

A 50 cal through the gearbox usually stops them whooshing, whining and thumping

December 3, 2017 10:21 am

Evidence of the power of the 1% not to spoil the view from their summer abodes. Nimby. Although at this point in time there are two main issues with none fossil fuel power. 1. Lack of storage at network capacity level to transform intermittent power into regularly delivered power. 2. Inability to transfer electric power well, over long distances, like from James Bay to Toronto or from the West Coast to New York. Fossil fuels will run out someday and we need to get ready in a controlled fashion.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Dawit
December 3, 2017 12:21 pm

“Fossil fuels will run out someday”

We heard that throughout the 00s. It was wrong. Fossil fuel supplies increased and prices went down. There are sufficient known reserves of fossil fuels in North America to carry us well into the next century.

Reply to  Dawit
December 3, 2017 1:33 pm


You seem to describe wind turbines as a controlled transition, to what?

Apart from the dafter sections of the human race imagining resurrecting a source of energy abandoned in the 18th century will provide all of humanities energy needs for the foreseeable future.

Wind turbines, as they are affectionately known, are no more than windmills. There is no control, nature doesn’t work like that, it is an green illusion. We can pack as much technology as we can muster into them but the fact is, if the wind doesn’t blow, all that technology is redundant capital.

It’s like hiring a workforce to work 50% of their contracted hours. The concept is insane, unless the government is subsidising it. In which case, it’s the government is saying, we’ll charge you taxes to employ people to work 50% of the time, then they’ll charge you more for your energy, to pay back the government for something you have already paid for.

Is it just me?

Leo Smith
Reply to  HotScot
December 3, 2017 4:24 pm

You seem to describe wind turbines as a controlled transition, to what?


Reply to  Dawit
December 4, 2017 1:50 am

A decent HVDC line would do that no problem. Like the Western interconnector being built of Scotland’s west coast

Nigel S
Reply to  Griff
December 4, 2017 5:31 am

Until someone drops anchor.

Guardian seeind as it’s you Griff.

F. Leghorn
Reply to  Griff
December 4, 2017 6:04 am

Absolute bull. You can’t transmit Direct Current long distances unless you are using superconductive cable (which you aren’t). The line losses cause enough heat to melt the cable – the higher the voltage the greater the heat. Anyone with even minimal knowledge of electricity knows this.

You prove you don’t know anything when you post idiocy like this. This is first year engineering stuff. Hell, first month. You are a copy and paste ideologue.

F. Leghorn
Reply to  Griff
December 4, 2017 6:04 am

Absolute bull. You can’t transmit Direct Current long distances unless you are using superconductive cable (which you aren’t). The line losses cause enough heat to melt the cable – the higher the voltage the greater the heat. Anyone with even minimal knowledge of electricity knows this.

You prove you don’t know anything when you post idiocy like this. This is first year engineering stuff. Hell, first month. You are a copy and paste ideologue.

Reply to  F. Leghorn
December 4, 2017 6:25 am


Absolute bull. You can’t transmit Direct Current long distances unless you are using superconductive cable (which you aren’t). The line losses cause enough heat to melt the cable – the higher the voltage the greater the heat. Any

I will politely disagree with part of that quote. Yes, Very High Power DC “can be” converted from High Voltage AC, and Very High Power DC “can be” successfully run cross country.
It is very expensive to do so. The multiple conversions of AC->DC->DC cross country wires->AC is very expensive, and is done ONLY when absolutely necessary, such as when the secondary losses of AC high voltage over very long distances add up to more than the DC losses. Over short and medium distances (less than 800-1200 kilometers) DC conversion is very wasteful: The Secondary AC losses are very low, and the DC expenses and conversion losses very high.) These secondary Very High Voltage losses are subtle ones, involving feedbacks and circular currents and phase loops between high voltage wires not covered in any basic physics classes, but very important in cross-country electrical engineering design and protection analysis. Over short distances, the old original Westinghouse-Edison-Tesla arguments against DC power grids remain correct.

However, these high current/high voltage long-distance DC cables are extremely expensive, and cannot be “tapped off” at intermittent points to serve other markets. A very high voltage AC transmission line is faster to get regulatory approval, faster to fabricate and install, easier to inspect and maintain, uses much less material, and is very easy to insulate and to repair when a problem develops.

DC is needed to tie together two different very high voltage AC grids (because there is no feedback between the two grids of slightly different phase relationships) but those ties are for emergency restarts after a regional blackout. they cannot carry the massive loads and power levels internal to grids.

If everything were free (as the enviro’s and politicians seem to expect), and if everything worked as easily as it d does in the classroom lectures enviro rallies and between government offices (as enviro’s and academics seem to expect), then Griff’s casual DC ties “might” work in some locations some of the time.

F. Leghorn
Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 4, 2017 7:02 am

You are correct of course. You could do it but the line losses leave you with very little at the other end. But I wasn’t going to get that deep into it here because it just encourages the trolls.

Philip Schaeffer
Reply to  Griff
December 5, 2017 5:17 pm

squiggy9000 said:

“You are correct of course. You could do it but the line losses leave you with very little at the other end. But I wasn’t going to get that deep into it here because it just encourages the trolls.”

So you just said you can’t do something that is already being done because the truth of the situation might encourage trolls?

December 3, 2017 10:22 am

I think it’s a pity it wasn’t taken down by pure economics in the absence of subsidies.

December 3, 2017 10:40 am

This is bad news IMO.

I wanted the rich people of Marthas Vinyard to live with what the rest of us have to live with.

There is a Kennedy somewhere promoting green energy including wind turbines somewhere. Alas, they, themselves are NIMBY.

Reply to  Tejas
December 3, 2017 11:40 am

I agree. I think wind power in the U.S. is dumb, but I have no desire to shut down someone’s project.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Tejas
December 3, 2017 12:22 pm

It is better to be able to quote their arguments back at them. Even better is the ability point fingers and laugh.

Reply to  Tejas
December 3, 2017 1:07 pm

Well, there’s Block Island, off Rhode Island. Only five turbines, but closer than Cape Wind would have been. Part of the deal was to connect Block Island to the mainland with the power cable used by the turbines.×600.jpg

Reply to  Ric Werme
December 3, 2017 2:00 pm


Reply to  Ric Werme
December 3, 2017 5:41 pm

What a sad looking view. Used to sail out there in the 60-70’s.
Could not understand why anyone would want to deface a seascape that stunning.
Of course, was in Sicily last year and encountered large wind machines on the beautiful ridges on that island.
A real eyesore, never saw any actually turning (it was in the early fall, so who knows?).

Reply to  Ric Werme
December 3, 2017 6:54 pm

One article said windmills were putting out 110 decibels.

I wonder how dolphins and whales like a continuous 110 decibels in the water. Sound carries a lot farther in water.

Bruce Cobb
December 3, 2017 11:28 am

The bloom is off the rose hips.

December 3, 2017 11:53 am

Think of the birds.

December 3, 2017 12:06 pm

If you look at the equation for wind power generation, it is equal to one half times the air density times the area traced out by the blades times the cube of the wind velocity times the Betz factor (16/27). The cube of the wind velocity is the real 800 pound gorilla here. What starts out as a mild breeze that wouldn’t mess up your hairdo can quickly morph into a roaring monster that can pick up a bus and hurl it through the air. Needless to say, the operating band is rather narrow and hence the low percentage of the nameplate power that is actually realized. For most of the time, the wind is either not blowing, blowing too softly or blowing too hard.

Reply to  Trebla
December 3, 2017 1:12 pm

A turbine can produce full power over a wide range of wind speeds. The catch is that they’re rarely reached.

Reply to  Ric Werme
December 4, 2017 3:59 am

Is there really something like ‘steady wind speed’……?

Reply to  Ric Werme
December 4, 2017 6:52 am


Perhaps, less often then steady winds actually exist?

Winds swirl and eddy from all points of the compass, beginning as just a breath of moving air, rising, peaking and then dropping off rapidly.

Making, I assume, a substantial amount of highly variable winds providing lots of highly variable power with frequency changes, surges and drop offs…

Which is a prime disqualifier preventing that power’s use for mining, smelting, refining, manufacture, general industry and electronics; e.g. industrial robotics.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Ric Werme
December 4, 2017 10:48 am

I’m not sure I agree with your definition of “wide” in this case. Long ago when I was in the chemical process industry, processes weren’t considered robust unless they had turn-down ratios of 5-1 or 10-1.

December 3, 2017 12:52 pm

It takes too long to build a nuke pant wind farm.

Sorry I could not help myself. There are two main reasons a proposed nuke is more likely to making power 40 years from now. First the nuke plant can afford more more lawyers to fight court battles. Second, nuke plants are very good at making electricity.

Reply to  Retired Kit P
December 3, 2017 2:20 pm

It’s not clear to me that the US can build nukes any more. At current natural gas prices and renewables’ subsidies, existing plants aren’t profitable.

Reply to  Ric Werme
December 3, 2017 3:31 pm

So Ric who decides what the profits are?

Can I pop the main breaker out of your panel when the power plant that used make your is closed because it was not ‘profitable’?

Ric is a broken record that that I have been hearing all my life. He wants the cheapest power but wow he will sure be happy to get power from the expensive power plant on a cold winter night.

Reply to  Ric Werme
December 3, 2017 4:04 pm

Most of my electricity comes from Seabrook (nuke) and Granite Ridge (natural gas). Heat is natural gas, but need electricity for that too.

I’d rather live near either of them (if they turn out their lights at night) than downstream of a wind turbine or big hydro plant. Got four small hydro plants in walking distance, they’d be safe to be downstream of.

Who decides the profits? Ideally the free market with a moderate amount of environmental concerns. I drive by a mostly shuttered coal plant too. They were forced to spend several millions on a new scrubbing system, then RGGI, the EPA, etc made it uneconomical to run the plant. I’d rather be downwind of that than a wind turbine too!

December 3, 2017 1:37 pm

Sure, sounds like a smart decision!

Minot light:
“•A fierce “nor’easter” blitzed the New England Coast on Wednesday, April 16th, 1851. Lighthouse keeper John Bennett was ashore in Boston and left his assistants Joseph Wilson and Joseph Antoine in charge of the lighthouse”

Then again, this lighthouse picture is from Brittany, France:

Reply to  ATheoK
December 3, 2017 2:28 pm

You call that a wave? You shoulda been here after the Blizzard of 1978!

Reply to  ATheoK
December 3, 2017 2:38 pm
Reply to  Ric Werme
December 4, 2017 6:38 am

Great pics, Ric!

Yup, them wind turbine are going to just love massive ocean waves off the New England coast… Not!

Wind farms at sea, providing reef structure debris fields for fish and piles of stressed, bent damaged, corroded metals and composites with large helpings of Federally protected chopped sea birds…

Here’s hoping that Trump’s Administration eliminates unnecessary regulatory and permitting processes for all energy generating industries!

December 3, 2017 2:31 pm
December 3, 2017 2:51 pm

Don’t let your guard down! says in small part:

… Unlike Cape Wind, three new proposed offshore wind farms would not be visible from Cape Cod or the Islands. The turbines are planned for an area 15-20 miles off Martha’s Vineyard, and 30 miles from the Massachusetts mainland. So far, the projects have not encountered organized opposition.

Deepwater Wind, Baystate Wind, and Vineyard Wind are now putting the final touches on bid documents that are due with state regulators Dec. 20. The firms are competing for lucrative contracts to supply electricity to Massachusetts utilities Eversource, National Grid, and Unitil. The three firms secured their federal offshore wind area leases in 2012 and 2015.

A 2016 Massachusetts state law requires the state’s utilities to purchase 1,600 megawatts of power from offshore wind — but the law was structured to exclude Cape Wind from bidding. The utility contracts will supply reliable project financing.

Vineyard Wind is jointly owned by Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners and Avangrid Renewables. Deepwater Wind is led by CEO Jeff Grybowski and backed by a private equity firm. Baystate Wind is a partnership between Eversource Energy and Orsted, the Danish firm formerly known as DONG Energy.

Rhoda R
December 3, 2017 4:27 pm

Maybe the best way to put an end to this nonsense is for the Feds to withdraw any and all subsidies for energy projects regardless of their nature.

Reply to  john
December 3, 2017 7:08 pm

I get a good laugh when I hear Obama whining about how Trump is undoing Obama’s “legacy”.

Obama is currently out making a big world tour. I guess he thinks he is still relevant. You’re not, Barack. You are yesterday’s news. Unless the Trump administration indicts you for some of your illegal activities. Then you’ll be frontpage new again. Hope to see you and others in your former administration in the news and in lots of legal trouble.

Reply to  Rhoda R
December 4, 2017 6:40 am

I’m with Rhoda R!

December 3, 2017 7:14 pm

So these wealthy hypocrites have succeeded in stopping a wind farm in their own backyard, but still want the rest of us to have them in our backyards. Isn’t that right? I fail to see why that is a victory.

December 3, 2017 10:49 pm

Was the backwash from the turbines going to interfere with the millionares yachts?

December 4, 2017 5:23 am

Huzzah! Score one for environmental and visual justice!

December 4, 2017 6:04 am

Progress!!!!! But still no progress on saving clear cut forests from the wood pellet mantra of the UK.

Reply to  Resourceguy
December 4, 2017 6:29 am

The sooner we leave the Paris Agreement the better. Drax will probably be unable to carry on burning wood pellets as it gobbles up all America’s forests. We need to think again.

Reply to  Vanessa
December 4, 2017 8:19 am

We need to get live video cams in the woods showing the clear cutting, the chainsaws, the diesel trucks hauling the wood and pellets, the ports loading and unloading the pellets, ships in transit, and the smoke at Drax. None of these pellets go to any local power plants near the clear cut zones.

December 4, 2017 6:28 am

Lucky Americans. Britain’s coast is littered with these ghastly things which kill millions of birds, bats, etc. while solar kills all their food by frying them.

Gary Pearse.
December 4, 2017 6:38 am

Did you attract any protesters from the Kool-Aid addicts?

Caligula Jones
December 4, 2017 6:57 am

As a fan of folk music (but of the conservative political persuasion), I have to grit my teeth when the between song patter gets political (and this was years ago, can’t image how bad it has grown in the last year).

Was once listening to a British a capella group called “Artisan” and one singer went on about how we needed more wind power…but keep them off his “beautiful moors…”.

Oh, and the concert was in Canso, Nova Scotia, home of a fish processing plant. In typical politically correct blindness, the same guy went on about how terrible it was to harvest fish and process them.

For some reason, they weren’t invited back.

Gary Pearse.
December 4, 2017 7:16 am

Trump terminated CAGW so this is going to be part of the great decline and dismantling of this embarrassing piece of history. George Santayana’s observation that society, politics, culture, art and history are organically connected, each reflecting the other, seems borne out with CAGW on the ropes, the corrupted Democratic Party in free-fall, not saving themselves by having a realistic retrospective on ‘what (obviously) happened’, Brexit, the innumerable harrassers and авцsегs now being outed on the left after a political strategy of digging such up stuff on a few right wingers (Left entitlement to rule is only part of the cult of entitlement and I suspect a landslide of this creepy behavior to come to light).

Unless their is a few clear eyed Dems left to ‘right’ the ship they are out of power for a generation or two. No one is ‘with her’ now and indeed the Clintons have been thrown under the bus by their former admirerers. The ‘foundation’ is dead, too – keep an eye on how they run the assets down!

Oh, and the dreaded Pause may soon be back! This will be a final curtain for the crippled globe gov renewables industry. Click on the graphic for an updated graph of ENSO:

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Gary Pearse.
December 5, 2017 8:13 am

I don’t align myself with any political party. I don’t share your optimism. I don’t think Trump will get a second term, the Dems will gain power again, and all the stuff Trump is dismantling will just be put back in place again.

December 4, 2017 8:43 am

Maybe they can keep the artist rendition for the feel good types and the rest can save their money to pay taxes in the northeast now that their big fat tax deduction is gone.

December 4, 2017 10:08 am

FYI, I saw an AP story (I believe) on this in a major and very left-wing liberal Marxist-Leninist newspaper a day before this thread appeared. Hard to believe, but true.

December 4, 2017 10:10 am

I read where Elon Musk is proposing to use his new “heavy-lift” launch vehicle to put his personal red Tesla in orbit around Mars. A red Tesla for Red Mars, Musk says.

Reply to  TA
December 4, 2017 10:12 am
Reply to  TA
December 4, 2017 2:15 pm

N. Tesla was also a showman for investors like JP Morgan until the end times came on the bank balance.

December 4, 2017 3:16 pm

“Molten salt reactors are a viable technology.”

Maybe! There are lots of viable technologies.

That is not the point. It is the chorus of people with no experience making absurd claims.

For example, safety. It is a not a contest. Every reactor has to meet safety criteria.

My real reactors have a perfect safety record as you would expect since it meet safety criteria. Your calculation based on your model is not validated by experience.

December 5, 2017 9:24 am

I don’t think we should gloat at the closure of a large industrial project even if it is offshore wind.
For a lot of workers and families this will bring economic uncertainty just before Christmas.
There is an important (if not dominant) place in the energy mix for renewables whatever one’s view on carbon dioxide.
As with nuclear, one of it’s spin-offs is a range of problem-solving technology advances.
Such as in heavy duty gearing mechanisms, materials and intelligent grid management.
One should try to be rational and not merely tribalistic in addressing such questions.
(While recognising the scurrilous tactics of many in the CAGW pro-renewables camp.)

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights