<p>Commercial fishermen and climate activists sparred with each other during a marathon, five-hour public hearing last week.
Commercial fishermen and climate activists packed the Ted B. Morgan meeting room last Wednesday, sparring with each other during a marathon, five-hour public hearing before the Edgartown conservation commission over two proposed undersea cables that would connect the nation’s first industrial-scale offshore wind-farm to the mainland.
Although the cables have been approved by the Martha’s Vineyard Commission, among other regulatory bodies, the portions of the cables in Edgartown waters are also subject to review by the town conservation commission under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. The two, 220 kilovolt cables will run approximately one mile from Chappaquiddick’s eastern shore, connecting the proposed 80-turbine Vineyard Wind project to an electrical generating station in Barnstable.
Vineyard Wind, the New Bedford-based subsidiary of a Danish renewable energy company, bought two offshore wind lease areas from the federal government in 2015 and 2018. During an extensive permitting process over the past two years, wind farm developers have promised that impacts from the undersea cables will have a minor to negligible effect on marine life and seafloor habitats. The project has received substantial support from environmental activists on the Island, who believe that offshore wind is the most effective way for communities in the American northeast to combat climate change.
But at the hearing on Thursday, about a dozen commercial fishermen spoke out passionately against the project, arguing that renewable energy projects shouldn’t be pursued at the potential expense of some of the world’s most fertile fishing grounds.
“I’m an advocate for renewable energy and sustainable fisheries. I just think this project is going to have way more of an impact than they are saying it is,” said John Osmers, an Island commercial fisherman. “Who knows what we’re going to disturb and what species of marine life we’re going to damage with this project? I’d like to for there to be renewable energy, I just don’t think this is the way.”
Others were more vehement.
“I am also 100 per cent in support of renewable energies. But I am also 100 per cent opposed to Vineyard Wind’s project,” said fisherman Preston Butler. “Our cod stocks are finally coming back . . . and all of a sudden you guys want to sit there on a boat and pile-drive the crap out of the ocean floor for god knows how long.”
Offshore wind activists also spoke passionately, reiterating arguments about the importance of alternative energy as climate change continues to impact coastal communities.
“Wind is the renewable resource that the northeast coast has,” said Bill Lake, who serves on the Aquinnah energy committee. “It is simply not possible for us to get off fossil fuels in this area without offshore wind. If we don’t use it, we will be devastated by climate change.”
Ron Dagostino read an excerpt from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s draft analysis of the environmental impacts from the project, which said most of the project’s expected disturbances to be minor.
“Due to the time and limited area involved, BOEM does not expect population level impacts on any given species,” Mr. Dagostino read. He further said that impacts on migratory fish, sea turtles, and the benthic habitat would be minor to negligible. “You have to consider the evidence, not conjecture,” he said.
Although the conservation commission only has jurisdiction over the portion of the underwater cables that run through Edgartown waters — and not the wind farm itself — the meeting on Thursday served as a public forum for both fishermen and wind activists to voice their support or concerns for a project with implications that extended far beyond a narrow stretch of ocean east of Chappaquiddick. The broadscale impacts of the wind farm, or the lack thereof, caused many who testified to become emotional. Tensions ran high throughout the standing-room only hearing.
Noli Taylor, who also serves on the Aquinnah energy committee, said that she supported the project because she feared for younger generations of Islanders, including her children, whose lives and livelihoods were threatened by climate change. Wes Brighton, who works as a fisherman in Menemsha, said the project also threatened his future livelihood.
“This is being rushed. It is going to be problem,” Mr. Brighton said. “We don’t know what the impacts of this are, and we are messing with the most pristine waters on the East Coast.”
After hours of exhaustive testimony, including a presentation from employees at Vineyard Wind, the conservation commission decided to close the public hearing. They kept the written record open for one week, and plan to deliberate on the project on July 10.
“It’s extraordinary to have this level of input. It’s what we need,” said conservation commission member Geoffrey Kontje. “The choice, after hearing everybody speaking today, seems to boil down to two things. Is the impact to your local environment worth the potential benefit to the global crisis we are in?”
“This is a tough one,” he concluded.
Comments
Fusion and
Paul Adler Up islandFusion and
Thorium reactors are clean and
Safe. Our government stopped research on thorium and chose Uranium much to our peril in the late 1940s. Still very little government spending on these two clean energy sources. Wind is clean but large towers proliferating our shoreline may not be the only option.
The Edgartown Commissioners
Helen Schwiesow Parker, Ph.D., LCP ChilmarkThe Edgartown Commissioners are actually NOT between a rock and a hard place on this. Rather, they have a rare opportunity to open the eyes of the world to the fact that - no matter how grave the climate challenge - wind is not the answer.
They might be surprised to learn how many people have already figured this out, and they will for sure regret a vote made without a few hours looking at real world data with an open mind and common sense.
Yes, we need to be concerned about sea level rise, ocean acidification, reducing fossil fuel use where we can, but data from around the world has shown conclusively that adding wind inefficiencies into the energy mix increases fuel usage and CO2 emissions (and therefore ocean acidification).
While electricity requires continuous and instantaneous balancing of supply to meet demand, a wind turbine’s output is unpredictable and varies continuously, chaotically responsive to small changes in wind speed.
Ever at the ready, rapidly responsive entangled conventional generators must be deployed to balance this ebb and flow. When intermittent wind power comes in (largely off-peak and off-season), the conventional plant is cut back (with energy shed in the process), then inefficiently ramped up when the wind dies.
Batteries are nowhere near ready to fill in when the wind dies. Total US battery storage could power us for 14 seconds.
The CO2 emitted, and the fuel used in the manufacture, transportation, installation, maintenance and de-commissioning of the short-lived turbines are often missing altogether on the balance sheet.
Real world production numbers of offshore wind installations? 39% output initially, 15% output after 10 years. While WIND HAS NO REAL VALUE, its cost and footprint are enormous.
Wind energy itself is so diffuse, light as air, that any harvesting mechanism must be MASSIVE. At 700’ tall, today’s turbines approach the 750’ height of the Prudential building. In order to produce 500MW of low quality, sputtering, and unpredictable energy - an amount equal to the output of a relatively clean natural gas plant spread over a few acres - we’d need an array twice the size of the VW project: 168 9.5MW turbines operating at a favorable 30+% capacity - occupying over 500 square miles of ocean, wreaking untold devastation on the ocean floor, the underwater environment, on marine creatures large and small.
Global Warming Guru Jim Hansen cautions: ‘Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels… is like believing in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.’
In Energy Solution Hinges on Better Technology, Bjorn Lomborg writes, “The belief that we already have the solutions is a delusion on a planetary scale…dangerous because it leads to us taking at face value promises and vows that have no chance of being enacted. And it is reckless because it stops us from focusing on what we need to do instead.”
"but data from around the
Daniel Phelan VH"but data from around the world has shown conclusively that adding wind inefficiencies into the energy mix increases fuel usage and CO2 emissions"
"a wind turbine’s output is unpredictable and varies continuously"
These are both lies. To the later lie- The NEISO is perfectly equipped to handle the day ahead forecasting for the power system. Wind power has a daily cycle just like solar power. Once the generation profile for the region is refined to model for the wind farm it will do so with great accuracy. It turns out that we aren't that bad at predicting the weather a day or so out. :)
To the ever repeated myth that some how adding a windfarm to the grid somehow increases fossil-fuel generation; please put it to rest. The NEISO is becoming more nimble not less. It is certainly flexible enough to pick up the phone and call a generator on the ISO to schedule an output reduction.
"While WIND HAS NO REAL VALUE" This is absolutely a ludicrous statement. A wind turbine has a free fuel source; the wind!!! A large wind turbine (like in the MW range) pays for itself in less than 4 years. If wind power had no real value than why is Eversource investing in this particular offshore project?
Has anyone studied the
Ted VHHas anyone studied the effects of the underwater cables that already supply power to the Vineyard?
We need the windmills, simple
R Scott Patterson EdgartownWe need the windmills, simple as that. The fishing resources face an exponentially larger threat from climate change then they do from this windfarm. This isn’t a close call.
These industrial machines are
Jo BishopThese industrial machines are certainly NOT "windmills" - so much about this industry is premised upon false narratives. Look to all of the land based wind power plants permitted upon errors, omissions and misrepresentations... ALL developers assured that their projects would be "Good Neighbors" ALL have been proven, post construction, to be neighbors from hell (as described by Larry a neighbor of the Hoosac wind project).
It sounds like the same
Carla Cooper EdgartownIt sounds like the same unfounded fears people had about the roundabout. Environmental experts armed with data and knowledge have said negligible impact to resident and migratory species. Acid rain from burning coal and auto emissions has a demonstrable negative impact on coastal ocean waters as well as freshwater lakes and streams, and ultimately freshwater and marine fisheries. Fear mongering about wind turbines is an attempt to keep big oil and coal from losing market share.
Why cant we find a solution
Don Richards OBWhy cant we find a solution for both sides? Can’t the power companies find a way to cleanly lay that cable away from the fishing?
Someone should tell Mr.
SaveOurFish ChappySomeone should tell Mr. Dagostino that what BOEM “expects” to happen does not constitute actual evidence... hopefully we don’t use this massive project as an experiment to test BOEM’s hypothesis... Also, wind isn’t our only renewable resource, it is one of the many options. We have tidal as well as solar, both of which have already been tested and engrained into the power grid in the UK, which is further North than the Vineyard. It’s time to stop this project from going ahead until all renewable options are considered alongside their evidenced environment impacts... stop Vineyard Wind!
Has anyone heard of the “New
Mary Chalke Nantucket, MAHas anyone heard of the “New England Clean Energy Connect”? It is the transmission line Iberdrola(parent company of Vineyard Wind) is building to bring 9.5 MILLION MW of affordable, renewable, not weather dependent hydroelectric power from Quebec to Massachusetts. Yay! Yet Governer Baker passed a law that requires sixteen HUNDRED MW of unreliable, weather dependent , economically unfeasible offshore wind power as well. Who is our wind farm developer? Iberdrola! Why? A gift to Iberdrola of billions of our federal tax subsidies. Offshore Windfarms are the new Gold Rush for big energy and big banking. We are being scammed,
C’mon guys you call yourself
Save Our Planet Oak BluffsC’mon guys you call yourself progressive? This is the same selfishness that got trump elected. Get over it. Protect the future generations and help save our planet. There are plenty of fish in the sea. :) Oh also consider not polluting our oceans and converting your boat to electric. Thanks.
Re "“Wind is the renewable
Katherine Scott TisburyRe "“Wind is the renewable resource that the northeast coast has,” said Bill Lake, who serves on the Aquinnah energy committee. “It is simply not possible for us to get off fossil fuels in this area without offshore wind."
NO. Wind is the only technology that has been developed to a commercial level. We have tons of ocean energy. We are surrounded by ocean energy. There are at least five technologies under development to exploit this energy. Only apparently not in the USA or . . . Denmark? Denmark has the luxury of having "backup storage" in lakes high in the mountains of Norway. We must stop using Denmark as a template for Martha's Vineyard. It is intellectually dishonest.
Instead we should look to Scotland, where they are activitly researching ocean energy in real time. Check out the European Marine Energy Center. Go there and be educated and amazed. Don't just sit in Vineyard Haven and New Bedford.
http://www.emec.org.uk/about-us/
Furthermore, we must reduce reduce reduce consumption. Too many people think that renewables mean the party can continue unabated and no one has to make a life style change. How many vocal environmentalists at the hearing are driving SUVs? How many took a bus or shared a ride to get there, or may, just, biked or walked?
Very informative and well
ken m Edgartown &Sanibel FlVery informative and well written article. One thing which would be helpful to understand the situation is:Your article states the project is subject to review by the Edgartown Conservation Commission. What exactly does that mean? Do they have the power to kill the whole project?
(sigh) People. The time for
Carol formerly Chilmark(sigh) People. The time for perfect solutions is long past. We need to ditch fossil fuels NOW. Build everything else - wind (and it's fine - I have a large cable underwater within 1/2 mile of my home overlooking the output of the great Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta into San Francisco Bay - the salmon and steelhead are unaffected). That cable brings power from many large windmills in the Delta to San Francisco & Oakland.
Fishermen - ocean acidification will wipe out your fisheries. Sorry if that's inconvenient to know, but it's true. And all you people who don't want wind - too bad. We need to do this AND all get into electric (not hybrid) vehicles now AND put solar on every roof now.
The time for quibbling about perfect solutions is past. It's now a five alarm fire.
“ wind is not the answer”
Jim Menemsha“ wind is not the answer”
Here here....
As a old geezer who cut his teeth on feasibility studies in the 70’s and hasn’t found justification yet- the above fits my sentiments exactly ....
See things as they are
Not as you wish them to be
“ no wind power “
Add new comment