The answer to energy independence may be blowing in the wind.
Mark Lovewell

Progress on Journey to Energy Independence

While Island kids slid joyfully down snow-covered hills last week, Cape Wind continued to have rough sledding.

While Island kids slid joyfully down snow-covered hills last week, Cape Wind continued to have rough sledding. But our local citizens’ energy cooperative, Vineyard Power (VP), had a triumphant moment. In partnership with wind developer Offshore MW, Vineyard Power successfully won a 170,000-acre offshore federal lease, a quarter of the giant 1,200 square mile parcel which begins about 12 miles south of the Vineyard. The arrangement comes with a full commitment to a package of community benefits for the Vineyard. Vineyard Power’s staff and board have tenaciously slogged through a long journey to arrive at this moment which promises the potential of future energy independence for the Vineyard. It will be years before we see (don’t see – they’ll be too far away) what 350.org founder Bill McKibben once described as, “The wind made visible. The slow, steady turning that blows us into a future less hopeless than the future we’re steaming toward now.” But the day will come.

As for Cape Wind, the first planned offshore wind farm in the U.S. (there are currently 73 operating offshore wind farms in Europe) has had a series of setbacks. But all is not lost, or won, depending on your perspective. There are signs of potential resurrection. The Better Futures Project has mounted a petition drive to convince Mary Reed, the president of National Grid and a longtime offshore wind supporter, to bring her company back to the Cape Wind table.

And just days ago, two key Danish lenders continued to express support for Cape Wind. When the Danes speak about wind energy it’s rarely just hot air — they are the world wind leader, having satisfied over 40 per cent of electricity consumption in the first half of 2014 with wind.

It’s worth considering why the Cape Wind path has been so arduous. There were plenty of missteps, beginning with the fact that the Horseshoe Shoal location is sensitive. But perhaps the critical aspect is that Cape Wind lacked — as the new VP proposal does not — clearly articulated local community benefits. If these had been built into the proposal from the start, it might have been different. The Koch brothers and their ilk would still have been just as opposed, but public support may have overwhelmed the opposition and shortened the path to construction, which is now in doubt.

The question is, why does any of this matter?

Because we have, in this country and on this planet, an unprecedented challenge ahead. Climate change is not some unfortunate future possibility — it’s what we live with, right now, today, and it has us on a knife edge. Climate change is the most vexing problem civilization has faced to date. The long-term, out-of-sight out-of-mind nature of climate change leads to indifference and inaction, even though the cost of doing something is dramatically less than the cost of doing nothing. Deep energy system de-carbonization will require tremendous innovation, rapid improvement in every critical technology area, and robust policies to ensure large-scale adoption of renewables.

We’re not doing that. Yet.

The U.S., remarkably, doesn’t even have an energy policy. But if there is an aspect that both sides of the aisle agree on, it’s energy independence, the idea that the origin of our energy is the critical issue, not the burning of fossil fuel itself. Other countries have energy policies driven by aggressive carbon reduction, which is the heart of the matter. No gasoline powered cars in Sweden by 2030. Carbon emissions down by 80 per cent in Finland by 2050. But here we can only agree that energy independence is a good thing and we need to use all of the above to get there — including fracking for low-return fossil fuels, using dirty coal and imagining a nuclear future.

Energy independence can mean different things. It can mean solar panels on your house which protect you from electricity price increases and fluctuations. It can mean adopting a low-energy lifestyle. It can mean building an offshore wind farm to provide power for the Vineyard.

Ultimately, whether we choose to believe it or not, we (as a species) will need to abandon the growth economy, create an alternative paradigm and consume less. Don’t want to think about that? Me neither, mostly. For now I will propose only two considerations. First, it’s not an altogether gloomy prospect (the good work of the Post-Carbon Institute and many others attest to this); and second, the need for a fundamentally different economy brings the energy issue home to what we do locally — in our homes, our businesses and our communities.

There are challenges and opportunities. At South Mountain Company one of our goals is to become a zero energy, zero waste company. Sound like a pipe dream? It would be, if we gave ourselves three years to do it. But not at all if we assume we will get there in 2030, or 2040, or 2050, and if we design the kind of continuous improvement path that our country has not. A few years ago, with that in mind, we asked ourselves these questions: While we are working so hard to make zero energy buildings, how are we doing with energy and waste within our company? What is the size of our own carbon footprint, let alone those of the buildings we build?

We didn’t know, so we set out to find out — to measure our impacts, consider ways to reduce them and track our progress over time. We developed a methodology, gathered the data and produced the first phase of our carbon footprint project. “What gets measured gets managed,” business sage Peter Drucker once said.

Last year we made our offices, shop, and storage facilities net energy positive by adding a large solar array and replacing our oil heating with electrically driven super-efficient air source heat pumps. Now our greatest energy use, according to the assessment, is employees getting to and from work and driving around doing errands during the day. Not so easy to zero-out that one, but the data has caused us to change policies, benefits, and incentives in ways that we think will reduce that part of our footprint as well.

We are also beginning the complex second phase of our assessment — to conduct a life cycle assessment of the materials we purchase for our projects, from the extraction phase through processing, manufacturing, distribution, use, and disposal. This requires extensive research and new learning.

We have an impossibly (almost) long way to go. But the first phase of our project has served its intended purposes. We identified what we are already doing well, found the areas most ripe for improvement and determined the aspects which need further inquiry. By continuing to measure and improve, measure and improve, over and over, across decades, we may be able to reach our goal. While there is likely to be no end to this project, we are no longer at the beginning. It’s part of a path to a more sustainable future and genuine energy independence.

The recent Vineyard Power award is a big step in the direction of community-wide energy independence. The VP efforts (onshore solar and offshore wind) are about energy supply. But there’s another side to deep energy system de-carbonization. It’s what we can do — each of us and all of us — to begin the gradual ascent to a low-carbon economic system.

There’s plenty, and plenty that we’ve done already. Not long ago there was no public transportation on the Vineyard. We can continue to improve it and we can make the Vineyard safe for cycling. We can ratchet up our already vigorous efforts to localize food production. We can pull our public buildings off fossil fuel once and for all. We can reduce SSA rates for high-MPG and electric vehicles. We can even think hard about turning Vineyard Power into a complete local citizen-owned electrical utility (our outstanding state Sen. Dan Wolf is beginning to study this right now in Barnstable). The list could be much longer, and the process of making radical forward progress could invigorate our local economy.

There will be no easy sledding to a low carbon economy; rather, it will be a long, slow hike up a steep, slippery hill. I hope the view from the top will be worth the journey.

John Abrams is president and CEO of South Mountain Company, a West Tisbury architecture, building, and renewable energy company.

Comments

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 02/06/2015 - 05:52

Permalink

Rex Jarrell

John,
I have hope for the good view too, for us and our future generations. It is a joy to be working towards such heights and slogging it out with your support via SMC and your personal activism.
Thanks you,
Rex

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 02/06/2015 - 06:13

Permalink

Bill Potter Oak Bluffs

Thanks John! This is an awesome article. Very well put!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 02/06/2015 - 06:53

Permalink

SM Boston

I have and continue to spend many summers on the Vineyard. There is plenty of oil in the world. We don't need to clutter the ocean with wind power. Humans will adapt to change. The climate has been changing since the dawn of time, I say let it change, let it change.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 02/06/2015 - 08:13

Permalink

Kate Edgartown

There are a couple of things to keep in mind. One, the pricing that was forced on National Grid and Northeast Utilities was way higher than the market, more than double other green energy sources and set to rise faster than any forecasted inflation rate. The former governor wanted this project despite its fundamentally flawed economic model. It is not all about the Kochs.
Second, there were 4 lots up for bid south of the Vineyard. Only two were awarded because of a lack of qualified bidders.
We need to maintain perspective. While I support Mr Abrams goals, given the pain of current electric rates, we cannot make them worse with flawed pricing. If there are places more suited to provide green energy at reasonable prices, then those should be encouraged.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 02/06/2015 - 09:05

Permalink

cappy anderson York, Maine

The headline to this article is objectionable. The inference is that so called "wind power" is a net positive in fighting climate change. Hubris at work as usual. How anyone can think these visual scabs are "worth it" in every sense that worth mean on any and all levels is delusional.

Lest you think I don't think climate change is real, you are sadly mistaken. For you who think these towers are so wonderful, How about a wind farm on Vineyard, Nantucket, or the Cape? Wouldn't that be so ever nice! Ever see these wind mills in a mountain setting. UGLY, Ugly, Ugly. These visual scabs kill birds, scar the landscape, and make an annoying noise when in close proximity. Also they are of marginal utility in production of energy.

Solar cells, in contrast, are, as of late, exponentially increasing in terms of efficiency. These offer a far better alternative to environmental problems. And-for the green heads who think anything "green" must be OK, let me offer this analogy to this magical thinking. "Organic" is always better. Arsenic, nicotine, lead, they are all natural and organic.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 02/06/2015 - 09:54

Permalink

Blake Cambridge, MA

Well put, John. If all greenhouse gasses were orange and smelled like rotten eggs, we would be constantly aware of their spewing from tail pipes, smokestacks, and feed lots. And it would be harder to deny that man's activity is destroying the one planet we have. Thanks for writing about a path to a hopeful future!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 02/06/2015 - 11:42

Permalink

Robert Skydell Chilmark

Great article John, thank you. I continue to be amazed at some of the overtly foolish and overly specious posts both here and elsewhere. With so many working examples of increased energy independence worldwide and effective policy making you would think the attempts to politicize clean energy in this country would diminish but sadly that hasn't been the case.
For some reason we still have many people who insist on keeping their head buried deeply in the sand as the rest of the world moves towards sensible and effective solutions.

cappy anderson york, Me

This is what I love. What you accuse people you disagree with-is exactly what you are doing. Where's your proof of what you say. Don't both to respond! Green sophism, cacophony, blather. I'm all for a wind farm in Chilmark. Bet you are too?! wind power at sea-"sensible and effective" How?

Robert Skydell Chilmark

Happy to respond Cappy.
First of all, offshore wind power is far more efficient in terms of power generation due to steadier wind velocities and lack of physical obstructions. Like you, I too have some issues and concerns with onshore, utility-scale wind installations for a variety of reasons but aesthetics doesn't happen to be one of them. Coal plants, nuke plants and power plants in general generally don't win any beauty contests in my opinion. Bird mortality, noise, etc. are basically non-issues offshore. Marine habitat is not adversely affected and in fact, due to underwater structure habitat benefits. We heard for years how Cape Wind would destroy the fishery and now everyone including the fishermen admit that the fishery is basically kaput without a wind farm. Cod stocks, once the backbone of New England fishing, are at all-time lows, depleted by something like 90%.
If you took a few minutes you can look at the results of modern offshore wind power today and see that despite all the 'blather' (as you put it) wind-generated energy is an important and significant part of the European energy portfolio even with fossil fuel backup and a distinct benefit; all of which can be verified by European historical data going back more than two decades. This isn't merely my opinion.
Since you bring up arsenic , lead, etc. as naturally occurring aspects of the environment I have to add mercury and other heavy metals to your list. These elements bio-accumulate in our food supply, especially marine life and are the direct result of acid rain from burning coal for many, many years. The increasing contamination of our seafood is not subject of debate, Cappy. It is also not a 'natural' phenomenon but a byproduct of how our electricity has typically generated for the last century.
Ignoring the damage to the environment, to the air we breath, the fish we eat, the water we drink, oil is cheap and coal is cheaper. But I still prefer wind and solar even at a higher per kilowatt cost.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 02/06/2015 - 11:59

Permalink

John Abrams WT

Hah, BS, I'm tired of it too - you shovel mine and I'll shovel yours. But you're not shoveling Global Warming, it's Climate Change you're shoveling, which brings, over time, greater weather extremes - more precipitation, more drought, colder temps, warmer temps. Some even call it Global Wilding.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 02/06/2015 - 13:49

Permalink

Don Oak Bluffs

While John has excellent ideas here and is taking great steps to make a difference, I have a problem with building and using wind turbines as part of the overall solution. Take a look at www.nhwindwatch.org to see what a group of very concerned citizens in NH have done and why wind turbines are not the answer.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 02/06/2015 - 17:06

Permalink

Ivan Quinchia Hebron

You will get what you deserve if you support this fallacy and twisted view of climate change and the panacea that tese wind developers are painting. There is a reason why the Fins are coming here to take advantage of our subsidies and it's because the Fins are tired of this facade.
With a 25% capacity factor, these turbines will offer intermittent power that will need to be shored up by fossil fuels and thus intermittently enough that co emissions will increase.
Download the ISO NE app and look at where your power is coming from. Look at it often and note the fluctuating price and the intermittences from sources when the wind does not blow.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 02/07/2015 - 10:47

Permalink

WRD WT

Excellent article. But growth in power will be outmatched by growth of population. Need an acceptable method to control human reprproduction.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 02/08/2015 - 23:38

Permalink

Chris VH

To say that there are "clearly articulated community benefits" is just disingenuous. When we were sold on Vineyard Power, we were told that we would develop this project WITHOUT a big corporate partner and that the electricity would power our homes. The actual community benefits agreement is vaguely worded nonsense. The power is going to be sold to the mainland at inflated rates and the money will line the pockets of Vineyard Power staff. No one else benefits. But hey, at least we get to pretend we did something good for the earth.

Paul Pimentel Edgartown, MA

Chris, you appear to be better informed about what Vineyard Power is doing than I am but I'm just the Board chair. Let me try, anyhow. About 40% of our wind turbine output will be sold at wholesale rates into the grid; that has been the case since we began; it's a consequence of a msimatch between the wind and when we use electricity. The resulting revenue reduces the price the owners pay for our power. So no windfall I can see coming unless we pick up on John's recommendation that we rethink our energy ways. You know, Chris -- electric cars, LED lights and efficient heat pumps -- then we can keep more of the power and money in your pocket.

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.