[MassHistPres] Wind Power Bait and Switch

Mon Aug 2 14:51:37 EDT 2010

Ok, time to ratchet this discussion down a few notches.  Please review
and follow all the guidelines for posting messages including your name
and affiliation within your email message.  

GUIDELINES FOR POSTING MESSAGES:

Postings should relate to issues of historic preservation in
Massachusetts.  

When you send a message or questions to the list, include your name and
affiliation.

The subject line should clearly demonstrate the topic in the body of
your email.

Do not send any messages that include commercial advertising.

Do not send any messages that include personal attacks.  

Do not send any messages that solicit for membership or fundraising.

Do not send virus warnings or other chain mail.  

Maintain professionalism and respect to everyone whether they are a
member of this list or not.  

These guidelines are subject to change without notice.

Failure to follow these guidelines may result in moderation of your
posts or removal from the list.

Job postings are allowed on masshistpres.

If you have any questions, please contact:

Christopher C. Skelly

MassHistPres Email List Administrator

Director of Local Government Programs

Massachusetts Historical Commission

220 Morrissey Boulevard

Boston, MA 02125

(617) 727-8470

(413) 834-0678

________________________________

From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu
[mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu] On Behalf Of peter kenney
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 2:13 PM
To: sam bird; carolmcarl at comcast.net
Cc: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Wind Power Bait and Switch

For several years I have heard the oil ploy used as a justification for
approving the Cape Wind project. This argument is so flawed as to be
self-defeating. Denmark generates 20% of its national electric load
using wind power, but the Danes have not shut down one of their
legendary and very dirty coal-fired plants. Wind, being intermittent,
will always require back-up power from fossil fuel plants.

However, the true flaw in this argument is in the numbers: Massachusetts
generates slightly more than one percent of its electricity using oil.
Arguments against Cape Wind based on historic presrevation and other
considerations should be seen in light of Cape Wind's claims about the
project's economic benefits. After all, Cape Wind's developer, Jim
gordon, does not claim that the wind farm will enhance Nantucket Sound's
natural beauty, or its navigation or air traffic, or its commercial
fisheries or its recreational boating uses. He claims that this project
will save ratepayers mponey....he made this claim repeatedly for nine
years until the truth was made known. We who opposed this project from
2001 knew this claim was a lie, but the Sam Birds of the world would
have us ignore the fact that wind power is both not affordable and very
destructive of the environment at its various sites. While people might,
perhaps, be willing to sacrifice some value of the natural or historic
character of a sacred place for a meaningful gain in other terms,
granting exclusive use of the heart of Nantucket Sound to one man for
his personal profit while requiring the public to pay more for the
electricity produced there is simply stupid, and wrong.

War is also not affordable, in the most basic of terms. War for oil is a
common ploy used by Cape Wind proponents. It is a cheap shot, a
meaningless and entirely false justification for the rape of Nantucket
Sound soley to profit one greedy man. Most importantly, after nine long
years we finally have proof, in his own words, that Jim Gordon has been
lying to the world about the cost of Cape Wind's power.

I think Walden Pond is perfect, location for at least one
turbine....what about you, Sam?

________________________________

From: greenbird-architect at comcast.net
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:05:18 -0400
To: Carolmcarl at comcast.net
CC: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Wind Power Bait and Switch

You probably haven't heard comments here because this is not the
appropriate forum for discussions related solely to PPA's and rate
structures for public utilities. This forum did have a discussion about
the declaration of 560 SM of Nanatucket Sound as eligible for the Nation
List  and that was appropriate as it had to do with Historic
Preservation.  

The interface of Renewable Energy and Historic Preservation is a
fascinating area for study - one in which to goals of each can be
directly at odds, in perfect harmony, or anywhere in between. Throw
politics, economics, climate change, and nimby-ism into the mix and it
gets really exciting.

That said, since the seal has been broken, the issue of the cost of
renewable energy is quite simple - for quite a while, given the way we
measure cost, it will be more "expensive" than fossil fuel. But then, is
the cost of fighting a war to "stabilize" oil producing areas of the
world figured in? Is the probable future escalation of fossil fuel price
figured in? Is the cost of the damage of increasingly intense weather
events figured in? As oil gets more difficult to find is the cost of
future Deepwater Horizons figured in? Are the health costs of decreasing
air quality figured in? Ask Messrs. Tuerck and Haughton.

The analogy is this: If you sent your husband to the market to get
something for dinner and he returned with a 5# bag of sugar you might
ask why, and he might say "Well, I looked at everything in the market
and this gave me the best price in terms of Calories per Dollar." That
may be true, but there are a few other things to consider when planning
a meal.  Organic food, local food, quality food usually costs more - but
an increasing number of people are deciding it's worth the cost.  With
the global effects of energy however, it is not a personal health
choice, as with food. The production of the energy each of us consumes
has an effect on everyone else on the planet - so this becomes an issue
of public policy and environmental justice, not an individual health
choice. The Cape Wind opponents have weighed the issue and decided their
viewsheds are more important than the public policy benefits of
renewable energy - everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Here's a thought to ponder:   Freedom is inversely proportional to
population. 

Samuel Bird AIA
Concord, MA

On Jul 30, 2010, at 6:58 PM, Carol wrote:

	Friends:

	I'm quite surprised that I haven't heard comment here about the
July 28, 2010, OPINION artical in the Globe entitled "The great wind
power bait and switch".    It was written by 2 Suffolk University
economic professors (David G Tuerck and Jonathan Haughton) and describes
the huge differences between what Cape Wind told us the cost to users
would be (save $25 million a year), and what the actual cost might be.
"Ratepayers could end up paying $82 million annually more than what they
currently pay".   Rather than give you all the details here, I have
pasted a link to the Globe article below.  It's well worth reading.  (I
understand money and costs in not what we usually write about here, but
this info is a big part of the overall picture of this Cape Wind
project!)

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/0
7/28/the_great_wind_power_bait_and_switch/

	Carol M Carlson
	Bedford, MA
	******************************
	For administrative questions regarding this list, please contact
Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly.  PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE
WHOLE LIST.
	MassHistPres mailing list
	MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
	http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
	********************************

****************************** For administrative questions regarding
this list, please contact Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly.
PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE WHOLE LIST. MassHistPres mailing list
MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
******************************** 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20100802/69cdd476/attachment-0001.htm>