[MassHistPres] Wind Power Bait and Switch

[Sam Bird]

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/ 
> 2010/07/28/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
> ********************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20100731/9040a113/attachment.htm>