Since it is clear that you folks deserve the FACTS about WIND ENERGY, surely you will find the article below of value.

In the upcoming election, it's important to understand that Republican Candidates have come out in opposition to CAPE WIND. Flip Flop Charlie Baker opposed Cape Wind.

Cape Wind represents the future toward which the rest of the world is moving.

It's time for the US to join the rest of the world, embrace alternative energy, reduce Dirty Fossil Fuel consumption.

http://readersupportednews....

There is nothing more offensive than the lop-sided ignorance that has been contributed by a few in this forum.

This article disproves the propaganda that has been shared:

Wind Power Pushes Down Electricity Prices in Nordic Countries, Ending Profitability of Fossil Fuels

http://readersupportednews....

Outrageous LIE'S. It been proven over and over that Wind Farms are a farce and don't produce even remotely the energy that these liberal morons profess.
T. Bone Pickens the wealthiest Oil Barren in the U.S. spent over a billion dollars to build a Wind Farm in West Texas where the wind velocity is the highest in the U. S.
IT FAILED and Pickens stated WIND POWER doesn't work and is a joke.
Let not also remember that these morons want to increase your electric bills here on the Cape & Islands by 4 times what your paying now per kilowatt hour.
Cape & Island taxpayers NOW need to be heard immensely to prevent this disgusting fleecing of everyone's wallet to feed there own coffers.

You are sadly misinformed about T. Boone Pickens and need to do further research.

T. Boone Pickens sought personal gain without conducting his due diligence.

This from the NYT:

"The latest scaling back, according to the Dallas paper, is due to transmission constraints. Texas plans to build about $5 billion worth of transmission lines to help carry the wind from the western part of the state, but they will not go where Mr. Pickens had hoped. Originally, he had even planned to build his own transmission lines."

In other words, he acknowledged planning a Wind Farm where there is NO DEMAND!

Your Dirty Energy Electric bill just increased 37%. You were just fleeced!

There is additional information available to those who attempt to inform themselves of the facts.

Both Wind Energy and Solar Energy are declining in cost, increasing in efficiency as the market continues to grow.

Instead of believing the right-wing propaganda you are consuming, you might consider Renewable Energy, here's a most recent article:
http://www.renewableenergyw...

Or a personal favorite, Rocky Mountain Institute: http://www.rmi.org/

You will note that RMI also highlights making buildings MORE EFFICIENT.

This isn't a matter of those dastardly liberals fleecing you to line their pockets. It seems to be a matter of your willingness to preserve your own ignorance and create enemies where none exist.

Instead of continuing to post nonsense, how 'bout offering some solutions that are environmentally friendly and are not TAXPAYERS SUBSIDIZED, like Dirty Coal, Dirty Oil and Tar Sands.

Not long ago, the blabber was about 'STORAGE' that appears to be muted.

Wow! Don't you guys ever get tired of shoveling manure?

You create curious arguments that appear to be logical, yet fail.
The rest of the world is moving forward while the US could/should be leading the way.

Having lived in Germany, it's difficult to believe solar has become so significant.
The Europeans were light years ahead of the US in energy efficiency decades ago.

One need only consider the global per capita energy consumption which reveals the US energy gluttony.

http://www.dailykos.com/sto...

It's understandable that the Regressive Party Followers eschew change, frequently quote from ....ahem....dubious sources....to justify dubious arguments all while failing to offer reasonable solutions.

Talking about the governor, Rodgers tells us:

"He knows that as we generate and own more of our own power, Massachusetts will continue to become more competitive and less vulnerable to the fluctuating prices and availability of fossil fuels."

The latest report from ISO-NE contains a letter from CEO Gordon Van Welie in which he sates:

"New England’s generating fleet is rapidly transforming. Natural gas plants and renewable energy resources are hastening the retirement of older, economically-challenged coal and oil units. Today, natural gas fuels about half of the electricity produced in the region (compared to about 15% in 2000), and gas- and wind-powered resources make up 95% of proposed new generators. But while this transformation has set the region on the path desired by policymakers toward lower emissions, it is clear that we have a number of reliability and economic issues that need to be addressed."
Van Welie is telling us that the governor has us on a path where wind and natural gas will be the primary sources of electric power. Far from being less vulnerable to the fluctuating prices and availability of fossil fuels, we will be more vulnerable, Instead of three fossil fuels we will be depended only on naturals gas for heat and electricity. This is the opposite to diversifying the fuel supply.
We are already seeing the effects of this with the recent announcements for up to 40% increase in electric rates. Wind will not reduce the demand for natural gas, because the only time we know how much wind energy was used is in the spring, after the fact. Before the fact planners not only have to factor in how bad the winter will be, but on top of that we need to add how much wind we will have and how it will affect the efficiency of natural gas power running is support of wind for stability.

Just connect the dots and you will realize that we are headed for disaster!

Roger's hype is contrary to reality ~
1. The wind blowing the hardest when demand for electricity in the summer is the highest - is incorrect. Ask meteorologists, air traffic controllers, aviators and mariners in the Cape & Islands about 'slack winds' & 'Nantucket fog' that permeate the Horseshoe Shoals area in July and August (when a/c runs 24/7).

2. COAL PLANTS are unlikely to close. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) report released December 2013 ~ "coal demand knows only one direction – up". By 2018, The IEA is projecting that global coal use could exceed global oil consumption on a BTU or joule basis. If coal plants are closing why (for example) did US Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, on an mission to Pakistan in 2009, advised business people in Lahore to build more and more coal-fired power plants?

3.REALITY - Harnessing the wind in our region's early history gave way to more effective, efficient and affordable means of making energy to power America. Windmills are quaint for nostalgic purposes but 21st century consumers are as concerned for effective, efficient & affordable power generation as our forebears. They embraced moving forward... not backwards.

Mark, this from you is true with one huge IF:

" wind in our region's early history gave way to more effective, efficient and affordable means of making energy to power America. "

The IF: If the external costs that are mentioned in the article are ignored. Rodgers is right on the money when he says that, if those costs were included in the cost fossil fuel, it would be far more costly... and far less "efficient and affordable". No?

DAVE ~ No. The external costs for coal, natural gas and oil (excavating, transporting and burning) “IF” added to consumer pricing, would not diminish their ‘value’ to the consumer. The price per kilowatt hour would indeed increase. Yet, the ‘worth versus cost’ in the eyes of the consumer still remains hinged to sources of cheap, reliable energy. Unfortunately, wind (without battery storage capacity advancements) simply can’t provide those two central consumer elements that our standard of living has come to require. (translating into, no matter the "IFs", Cape Wind's power being more expensive. Looking at the comparative external values, including the negative effects, folks are still driven by Economics 101 and wanting “the biggest bang for their buck”. Even “IF” the external cost of excavating, transporting and burning coal, natural gas and oil were calculated for Cape Wind’s potential service area, the project would still remain less "efficient and affordable". No?

Mark,

I'm making a single point: If external costs were included in fossil fuels they would be significantly more expensive. Full Stop. You've taken us into multiple different areas (example reliability). I'm not saying those aren't valid areas for discussion by the way.

It's hard to say how much more expensive. But I, along with virtually all of the world's climate scientists, believe in fossil fuel driven global warming. And that involves astronomic cost.

So, I still contend that fossil fuels would be much more expensive if external costs were included. Again, full stop.

Dave ~ so we’re clear“ I too believe in fossil fuel driven global warming.” I also believe in fiscal shrewdness. I’ve taken to citing 'reliability' & 'efficiency' for My point ~ whatever the more expensive external COSTS of fossil fuels would be if included, significant as perhaps they might be, the aspects of RELIABILITY and EFFICIENCY with Cape Wind or any utility scale wind energy pseudo-solution, are absolutely indispensable/essential when examining the project in it’s totality.

The value to the Consumer has always been subject to and weighed on the balance of these three pillars of economics (full stop). I respect your contention that fossil fuels would be more expensive if external costs were included, and I’ve agreed. I contend that its not worth it in terms of value when Consumer COSTS could be spent on HIGER QUALITY AND RELIABLE sources of energy (full stop).

Reliability becomes a problem when variable sources reach a certain % threshold on a grid. That threshold varies from grid to grid but back when I used to debate this regularly the rule of thumb was around 10%.

The problem that you refer to becomes real at some % of variable sources on a grid. It will not be a problem, however, when a single, medium sized variable power plant is introduced to the New England grid.

Now, if we're talking about building a large offshore industry up and down the East Coast then variability most definitely IS a problem. That's one reason to question the viability of such an industry (with today's technology, anyway).

But, by itself, CW won't cause reliability problems.

The consumer knows the problem to be “real” no matter the % of variable wind power on the grid, whether it's CW singularly or whether offshore + land based projects cumulatively. Small, medium or large, wind’s expense has a very high capacity cost per megawatt (MW) and a very low capacity factor relatively speaking. In the end, the consumer is left with an inflated energy cost due to an energy industry’s inefficient yield adding on to on to their energy costs. In other words, even if external costs were counted, no matter the size of a wind project tied to the grid, the majority of consumers would compare and likely prefer an energy source with the lowest capacity cost per MW and the highest capacity factor. A criteria CW (to date) is unlikely to meet.

Dave... reliability doesn’t become a problem at a triggering threshold as you contend. To the consumer (no matter the product), it’s either reliable (cost beneficial) or it isn’t. If wind energy reliability is suspect, yet it’s argued (or legislated) that we should be receptive to the idea, then the debate shifts to “why” we should pay for a deminimus rate of effectiveness? Mitigating fossil fueled man-made global warming is a noble cause (& necessary). Grid scaled wind, in my opinion, doesn’t offer the biggest bang for the buck.

"Integrating more renewables into the US grid will be costly and have unintended consequences, including potential for increased carbon emissions, that policymakers need to plan for, warns a new Massachusetts Institute of Technology Energy Initiative study."
This is one for the conclusions from a resent symposium of experts at MIT.
It looks as if the external costs may increase with the integration of wind power!

OMG NEE: How many times must you drop that old "renewables will increase carbon emissions" chestnut on us? Nobody but extreme anti-renewable zealouts believe that one.

Let's see the MIT source so that I can read it and see how you've twisted it.

Unfortunately, it appears that the moderator is blocking comments with external links. So I can't link you to the source. But here is another extreme anti-renewable comment from a "zealot" from the MIT study:

"The study’s message for policymakers and regulators is that intermittent sources will cost more for total operations, and they have to decide who is going to pay for it – a message that is “not popular,” conceded MIT Professor John Deutch."
This was two years ago. The recent announcements of a 40% rate increases by utilities are proof that renewables are expensive and do little to avoid carbon.

The extra cost will be paid by those who can least afford it!

Mark Rodgers tells us that on cold winter months, Cape Wind will help avoid blackouts due to natural gas shortages. The link below tells a different story:

(The link is being blocked by the moderator. Google the following:)
(vtdigger Wind ISO-NE) It was published in 2013/10/08

When the chips are down, ISO-NE turns wind turbines off to stabilize the grid,
and scours the region to find dirty coal and oil generators, because they are
dependable, and wind is not a substitute.

If ISO-NE is having trouble integrating 10 MW of wind now, what can we expect
on cold winter nights from Cape Wind? The answer is nothing. ISO-NE will
probably issue a curtailment order and Cape Wind will scream demanding payment
for electricity they were forced to throw away.

Policymakers will likely grant the payments and our rates will increase even
higher!

Typical misleading post by NEE.

"When the chips are down, ISO-NE turns wind turbines off to stabilize the grid,".

Wrong if you read the article which says that, on a particular night, there was an excess of power entering the grid so wind farms were told to shut down. This hardly involved grid destabilization.except in the hands of NEE who always searches out the most damning words possible for wind power... his bette noire.

Is ISO-NE ordering wind farms to shut down in certain conditions a good thing for wind power? Of course not. But there's no destabilization going on.

p.s. NEE: Before you react: I know that too much power WOULD destabilize the grid. It's just that shutting off the wind farms is so routine - ISO does things like that every day of the year - that destabilization was never in the cards.

"David Blittersdorf is a principal of the project. He claims his turbines would have produced 9.8 mW an hour, if they were allowed to generate. Now, Blittersdorf says, he is billing ISO $5,490 for the lost generation"

The wind farm is rated for 33 MW and was producing an average amount of about 10 MW, hardly excessive. The reason they shut it down was not that it was producing more power than they needed, it was that it could unexpectedly produce 33 MW, more power than they could handle. Blittersdorf is sending a bill because the wind farm was performing as expected.

In an article from the New York times, we have the following:

“We were being told to turn on diesel-fired units that are very expensive and dirty and told to ramp down what is renewable, cost-effective energy for our customers,” said Mary Powell, chief executive of Green Mountain Power....

And this apparently happened in July when demand was high.
ISO-NE cannot handle 33 MW of wind in the winter and they cannot handle 33 MW of wind in the summer,
Therefore:

They will not be able to handle 400+ MW from Cape Wind.

We will be paying extra while Cape Wind will be sitting idle!
.

You're string deductions together again NEE. Such deductive practice has led you to a wild, exaggerated conclusion.

I've been correcting you on that for years now NEE. I'm tired of doing it. So I'll retire now in the face of overpowering ilogic.

Mark Rogers tells us that on cold winter months, Cape Wind will help avoid blackouts due to natural gas shortages. The link below tells a different story:

(The link is being blocked by the moderator. Google the following:)
(vtdigger Wind ISO-NE) It was published in 2013/10/08

When the chips are down, ISO-NE turns wind turbines off to stabilize the grid,
and scours the region to find dirty coal and oil generators, because they are
dependable, and wind is not a substitute.

If ISO-NE is having trouble integrating 10 MW of wind now, what can we expect
on cold winter nights from Cape Wind? The answer is nothing. ISO-NE will
probable issue a curtailment order and Cape Wind will scream demanding payment
for electricity they were forced to throw away.

Policymakers will likely grant the payments and our rates will increase even
higher!

Mark Rogers tells us that on cold winter months, Cape Wind will help avoid blackouts due to natural gas shortages. The link below tells a different story:
http://vtdigger.org/2013/10...
When the chips are down, ISO-NE turns wind turbines off to stabilize the grid, and scours the region to find dirty coal and oil generators, because they are dependable, and wind is not a substitute.
If ISO-NE is having trouble integrating 10 MW of wind now, what can we expect on cold winter nights from Cape Wind? The answer is nothing. ISO-NE will probable issue a curtailment order and Cape Wind will scream demanding payment for electricity they were forced to throw away.
Policymakers will likely grant the payments and our rates will increase even higher!

The picture of the smog in China with the clear sky on the monitor isn't quite the way it's been captioned. The picture was taken when the screen happened to change to a sky. It isn't there to have everyone pretend to enjoy a fake sky. But it does provide a good depiction of their crappy air quality.