Massachusetts Official, Cape Wind Supporter, Worries Cape Wind Electricity Will Prove Too Expensive.

[NNadir]

Stung by an analysis of the price of offshore wind that torpedoed a similar proposal in nearby Rhode Island, where wind developers demanded a wholesale price twice that of Rhode Islands retail electricity price, already among the highest in the United States, Ian Bowles, Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs, worried that Cape Wind's electricity would prove too expensive.

http://wwb.wgbh.org/cainan/article?item_id=4073905

* In recent weeks, utility officials and some of the project's strongest political supporters have expressed concern that the electricity Cape Wind would produce would be too expensive. In a letter the Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs Ian Bowles warned Cape Wind and National Grid to keep the rate payers in mind when they negotiate prices.

More discussion is available here: http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view/20100218official_to_grid_curb_wind_costs_concern_over_cape_projects_rates/srvc=home&position=also

Massachusetts electrical energy is mostly generated by a combination of the dangerous fossil fuels coal, oil and natural gas.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sept04ma.xls

Even if the wind plant is built - it's been the subject of intense argument for almost a decade - the number of dangerous coal, oil and natural gas plants that will be shut will be zero, since without dangerous coal, oil, or natural gas back-up, expressed as redundant capacity, wind power is useless.

[Tesha]

1. It's always amusing when DUers arguing certain, generally right-wing points of view...

...use outrageously right-wing rags to support their arguments. The Boston
Herald? THAT is what you've sunk too?

Tesha

[joshcryer]

2. I was surprised that those Native American tribes rejected the million in hush money.

edit: poor wording on hush money offer, it's only $50,000 for 20 years, which is much smaller.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. What comments disturb you so? The proposal is far from economically viable

Or would you rather burden rate payers with massive energy cost increases?

[Tesha]

5. As I *CLEARLY SAID*, I find it odd that DUers trumpeting right-wing causes...

...always turn to right wing sources for their support,
whether we're discussing nuclear energy, women, guns,
gays, or god.

We would never accept the Boston Herald as a source of
information in "the general case", but here we're expected
to accept it in this specific case because it supports our
favorite nuclear proponent's point-of-view.

Tesha

[Statistical]

6. Nuclear energy isn't right wing. Majority of both parties support nuclear energy.

You are just in a small & shrinking minority and don't know it.

[Tesha]

7. That would be because both of our parties are now right wing.

We do not have a functioning left-wing party.

Tesha

[kristopher]

8. Stats is engaging in typical nuclear industry distortion

That presentation of data is not the sentiment that the underlying poll reveals. First, here is a clear image of public support for nuclear:

Associated Press/Stanford University Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. Nov. 17-29, 2009. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"In general, would you favor or oppose building more nuclear power plants at this time?"
Favor 49 Oppose 48 Unsure 3

***********************************************************************

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

What the graphs stats used charts is actually how worried people are about energy and climate. The underlying poll asks if nuclear should be "one of the ways" to provide electricity for the US.

Influences on that graph:
1) Nuclear already IS one of the ways, so the reader must be in favor of decommissioning nuclear power in a time of uncertainty regarding energy security and climate change to be "opposed".

2) The answers are divided into 4 categories; and what isn't shown is that the shift to "strongly support" has only changed a couple of percentage points.

3) When you compare the Gallup poll with the two posted above (those are typical of polling on the issue) you can see the way energy security is a higher priority than environmental issues for those who state direct support for nuclear power as it is identical to the results for building more coal plants, and tracks the approval of drilling for petroleum closely.

The use of that graph is a standard attempt to create foster "the bandwagon effect"


I wonder what the results of polling would be if respondents were shown this graph first:


Full cost report by Cooper here:
http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse
http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

[kristopher]

9. That is totally false.

Cape Wind is has a very strong economic justification. The referenced project that was cancelled was a pilot project that the state had agreed to as a precursor to a much, much larger project in deep waters with an as yet unused technology. The pilot was 8 turbines and the high expense was expected because there is no economy of scale. The Chamber of Commerce pounded relentlessly on it with out of context economic arguments (acting as the OP did that it is a stand alone project) and succeeded in exploiting the Teabagger atmospherics to get the Public Utility Commission to turn down the project even though it had been approved by the state.

So we have a pilot project for deepwater turbines being compared to a wind farm in one of the best, most economically attractive sites in the world for wind. The shoals in Nantucket are very, very shallow and great protection is afforded the turbines by the barrier islands. It will be comprised of about 125 turbines so economies of scale mean the price of the product will be nothing like the deepwater pilot project.

You must be a professor of basketweaving.

[Merchant Marine]

10. Nice personal attack n/t

[diane in sf]

11. no, it was a good rebuttal, the final sentence was admittedly snark.