Left In Lowell

Cape Wind: One More Step Towards Approval

11 Responses to “Cape Wind: One More Step Towards Approval”

1. Josh Says:
   March 30th, 2007 at 12:51 pm

   If decentralized energy is such a good idea then how come no greedy capitalists have come forward to supply people with it and make a profit off of it? Maybe it’s not as simple as you think it is.

2. Peter Porcupine Says:
   March 30th, 2007 at 1:37 pm

   We have the Cape Light Compact, which does solar audits and helps you decide if solar can work for you. Also, the town of Barnstable is addressing zoning to allow Country Garden Nursury to install a turbine to generate power. We have several small turbines on Cape - the Mass. Maritime Academy, Cape Cod Regional Tech. High School, etc. We have less solar, as we have a lot of fog - but much wind!

   I was born on Cape, and have lived in my current home year round for 26 years, and me and my neighbors support the wind farm. Don’t let boston media tell you we don’t, or it’s just summer people who want it!

3. Lynne Says:
   March 30th, 2007 at 1:44 pm

   Because there’s far far more money to be made from the status quo right now. The interests stacked for keeping it that way far outweigh the other side, especially because the renewable energy side requires a HUGE investment in infrastructure up front.

   In the past, this country has been very successful in subsidizing industry in order to push technology into common usage. Telephone, electric, etc. have all been heavily subsidized industries.

   What I am specifically interested in is making sure the consumer side is where we do this the most, because the nature of decentralization is, well, decentralization, the empowering of individuals. Making it possible financially for middle class and lower income home owners to put renewable energy equipment on their property ensures that the industry will be successful (as we did for telephone, electric, air travel, etc) so we can meet the goals of decentralized power along with decarbonization. This sort of transformation of our energy economy, where the momentum heavily favors the current model of delivery, requires great political will.

4. Tim Little Says:
   March 30th, 2007 at 3:07 pm

   Some interesting reading from the DOE on “net metering” (which is essentially what Lynne is getting at, I believe):

   http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/netmetering.shtml

   Unfortunately I believe that state utility regs and zoning laws (particularly for home-based windpower) do not enourage this practice, nor do utility companies have any incentive to buy back power from their customers. But that’s not anything that can’t be corrected through a combination of education and — if need be — legislation.

5. ThomB Says:
   March 30th, 2007 at 5:11 pm

   Let’s see I pay around $200 dollars a month for gas/electricity. That’s $2400 a year and it goes up every year. Multiply by 30 or 40 years add a little for inflation and you’re talking a couple hundred thousand over a lifetime. Gee I have no idea why energy companies would be against sustainable energy where I only pay for equipment for once.

6. Lynne Says:
   March 30th, 2007 at 5:25 pm

   To be fair, in this scenario, you pay for equipment, then maintenance/replacement costs during your lifetime, etc, but yeah, you would pay an atronomically smaller amount over the long run.

   Also, factor in your gas-powered car, versus a car powered by hydrogen generated by your renewable source (if you get enough sun/wind to power in excess of your home needs, which you could do with real breakthroughs in efficiency). One could, in effect, live entirely off the grid. Who benefits? Except for the equipment/maintence provider, only the consumer of the energy. As Thom says, why would any energy company possibly want that? There’s a REASON they’ve spent so much money to muddy the waters about the global climate crisis…they stand to lose trillions over the long haul, if we got off hydrocarbons and went into a decentralized model.

7. JOE BISHOP Says:
   March 30th, 2007 at 9:17 pm

   The state already subsidizes green energy. It is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money. The majority of those wind turbines on the Cape produce little energy by the way (if I am correct, most are 10 kw… barely enough to make any difference in savings versus what they cost to erect, etc.).

   It is not decentralization that is the answer, but deregulation. However, I doubt the state and federal government would want that to happen. The electric industry is by far one of the most regulated industries in America. That is why it is inefficient.

   As Ron Paul says so eloguently (he is running for President, please consider supporting him):

   It’s true that the nation’s power grids are inadequate for today’s needs, and that a relatively small overload in a vulnerable spot can create a huge problem. This is hardly an indictment of the free market, however, but rather an indictment of the stifling maze of government regulations that burden electricity producers. Energy bureaucrats, despite their attempts at centralized planning through production and price controls, can never hope to determine how much electricity should be produced, where it should be channeled, and at what prices it should be sold…

   Unless and until government stops restricting supply and controlling prices, however, we can only expect the electric power system to remain vulnerable. It is precisely because electricity is so vitally important in our modern world that it should be delivered by the efficient free market, rather than the dismal bureaucratic sector

8. tim Says:
   March 31st, 2007 at 10:31 am

   It’s not as if deregulation could lead to a major disaster due to corporate greed and general idiocity. And even if that did happen, eventually those companies would go out of business and some other company would eventually step in and supply electricity. It might take a while, and meanwhile electricity might be so sporadic that your fridge is near useless and you know the chicken might be bad but your family is so hungry so you cook it anyway and then your frail mum gets sick and dehydrated and so does your kid but you can’t really help them because you got hit near as bad, and you can’t call anybody because the electricity is out and you’re now regretting buying a house with only 2 bathrooms because when 4 people have diarrhea somebody is gonna crap their pants.

   But yeah, deregulation woo! It’s their own fault anyway, they should’ve bought some adult diapers for just such an emergency.

9. Lynne Says:
   March 31st, 2007 at 2:44 pm

   It’s not like deregulation hasn’t already lead to disaster…nope, nothing to see here but us chickens.

10. Shawn Says:
    April 1st, 2007 at 11:48 am

    Hasn’t one of Patricks commissions just come back recommending deregulation of the auto insurance industry in Mass (like the rest of the country).

    The extreme responses do not add to the conversions.

    I think a reduction in regulation would make a great deal of sense in this area.

11. JOE BISHOP Says:
    April 2nd, 2007 at 10:22 pm

    Exactly how is energy deregulated? I fail to see anywhere in that industry where government is not involved.

Leave a Reply