The Cape Wind energy project proposed for Nantucket Sound is a Ponzi scheme based on the evidence herein provided.
by Barbara Durkin
Several years ago, GE "discontinued" their 3.6 MW wind turbines that are spec'd for the Nantucket Sound project by Cape Wind.
Millions of our federal dollars are being committed to determining cost v benefits, and adverse impacts to Nantucket Sound, eligible for listing to the National Register, on a failed offshore wind turbine model.
The U.S. Office of Inspector General Cape Wind, LLC Investigative Report Redacted, dated January 8, 2010, cites representation by the Department of Energy DOE contracted National Renewable Energy Laboratory NREL engineer:
“The engineer stated that he believes the Cape Wind project itself is probably three years away, technology-wise,.."
On December 3, 2009 the Boston Globe reported that Cape Wind is hoping to qualify for federal stimulus funds.
Based on the OIG Report, to reap this *"stimulus" 30 percent tax credit, Cape Wind would need to be operational one year before Cape Wind technology becomes available in 2013.
February 27, 2010
Subjects: RE: D.P.U. 09-138 Cape Wind National Grid PPA negotiations
Cape Wind Associates, LLC Report of Investigation-PI-MA-08-0513-1
Dear Ms. Avery and Attorney Gerwatowski:
Thank you for your update regarding National Grid negotiations ongoing with Cape Wind.
Please be advised that according to the United States Office of Inspector General Investigative Report Redacted dated January 8, 2010, Cape Wind eligibility for American Reinvestment and Recovery Act stimulus dollars is, by description in this Report, challenged.
Published articles indicate that Cape Wind is seeking a federal Sec 1603 grant. But, according to the U.S. OIG Report, the DOE contracted NREL engineer represents that Cape Wind is three years away technology wise. To qualify for federal stimulus money, Cape Wind must be operational in 2012.
From this OIG Report:
“An Engineer at the National Wind Technology Center, which is a division within NREL, was interviewed. The engineer stated that NREL is operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, and is under contract with DOE to research renewable energy, including wind.”
“The engineer stated that he believes the Cape Wind project itself is probably three years away, technology-wise, and the necessary technology needed to construct a commercial floating wind turbine is 10-to-15 years away.”
"Cape Wind’s developers are hoping to qualify for stimulus funds through a 30 percent tax credit available for renewable energy projects in operation by 2012."
“Clearly, if they want to get stimulus money and have things operational by 2012, we’re going to have to start talking,’’ said Marcy Reed, a senior vice president with National Grid.
New York Times 12/02/09:
"The project needs to have a construction agreement by next year, and be operational by 2012, in order to receive stimulus funds, Mr. Bowles said. The stimulus could offset 30 percent of the project’s costs."
I have provided National Grid Attorney Roland Gerwatowski with additional information regarding Cape Wind’s status featuring the “discontinued” Cape Wind spec’d GE 3.6 MW wind turbine. I remain confused as to what the subject of Cape Wind and National Grid negotiations are about as Cape Wind is a phantom wind energy project. All cost v benefits negotiation and discussions between Cape Wind and National Grid are hypothetical, while they should be informed and hardware specific. National Grid customers, like me, are exposed and we can ill afford conjecture as the subject of Cape Wind National Grid contract negotiations.
Northboro, MA 01532
Evidence: Link to United States Office of Inspector General Cape Wind Investigative Report Redacted: http://www.doioig.gov/
My email letter sent to N.Grid Attorney Ronald Gerwatowski:
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 12:17:54 EST
Subject: RE: D.P.U. 09-138 Cape Wind National Grid PPA negotiations
February 1, 2010
Ronald T. Gerwatowski
Deputy General Counsel
Dear Attorney Gerwatowski:
Pursuant to Memorandum of Understanding dated as of December 1, 2009 by and among Massachusetts Electric Company and Nantucket Electric Company each d/b/a National Grid, the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources and Cape Wind Associates, LLC, and the update on status of negotiations with Cape Wind, I have a question.
What make and model offshore wind turbine has Cape Wind represented to National Grid will be used?
Critical to the cost analysis and negotiations ongoing with National Grid and Cape Wind is the subject. The subject of negotiations is the GE 3.6 MW wind turbine x 130 that IS Cape Wind.
The GE 3.6 MW wind turbine specified by Cape Wind is “discontinued” as well as technically obsolete as the entire focus of the MMS Cape Wind draft EIS 4,000 pages; carried forward in the Final EIS 4,000 pages.
Moreover; MMS Final OCS rules (page 47)
“Based on comments received on the NPR, MMS added a requirement to this section that in order to qualify to become a lessee or a grant holder, the applicant must demonstrate technical and financial capabilities to construct, operate and maintain, and terminate/decommission projects for which you are requesting authorization.”
Exactly what is being scrutinized by ALL 17 Agencies involved in the state and federal Cape Wind NEPA environmental review processes and the National Grid?
The cost v benefits and adverse impacts of the “Proposed Action” as the installation of 130 GE 3.6 MW wind turbines in Nantucket Sound.
Please note that in Cape Cod Times, September 25, 2008: ‘GE may change Cape Wind direction’ it is stated:
“General Electric — identified earlier as the prospective supplier of wind turbines — appears to have dropped the 3.6-megawatt model Cape Wind had hoped to use, said Rodney Cluck, Cape Wind project manager for U.S. Minerals Management Service.”
“In documents filed with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Massachusetts environmental officials before 2005, Cape Wind officials listed the GE model as the turbine they had planned to use for the project, Cluck said.”
However: Rodney Cluck was project manager when the Cape Wind MMS DEIS was produced.
Cape Wind Energy Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Bookmark 2.0 “Description of Proposed Action”
(see top of page 69-70 where Cape Wind identifies GE 3.6 MW wind turbines will be used)
A careful read of the above should indicate to you that MMS, with Rodney Cluck as Cape Wind project manager, is pointing his finger at USACE. But, under Rodney Cluck’s watch as Cape Wind project manager, the 4,000 page DEIS carried forward to the final EIS focus is on an obsolete and “discontinued" GE 3.6 MW wind turbine that is Cape Wind.
On April 23, 2009, at 9:49 EST, MMS sent notice by email to me announcing an 11:30 AM teleconference on Final Framework for Renewable Energy and Alternate Use. I participated.
MMS Acting Director Walter Cruickshank, MMS Offshore Energy & Minerals Management Associate Director Chris Oynes, and MMS Renewable Energy and Alternate Use Program, Program Manager Maureen Bornholdt, conducted this forum.
During this MMS teleconference, I asked this panel, "Given the fact that Energy Policy Act of 2005; Section 388 "H" requires the Secretary to provide a fair return the U.S. for the alternative use of our resource; and, given the fact that the U.S. EPA Cape Wind FEIS comments of 2/17/09 on the Cape Wind FEIS state that Cape Wind is "not economically viable", how can MMS reconcile that which is "not economically viable" with MMS requirement of providing a "fair return" to the U.S. for the use of our resource?" MMS response was that their interest is in the lease, and that this is a developer issue.
I then asked, "As GE has "discontinued" the GE 3.6 MW wind turbine spec'd by Cape Wind; and as Royal Dutch Shell has announced that they will no longer invest in offshore wind as it's "not economic"; and as Vestas has stated that offshore wind is "twice the price" of conventional energy, "Could you please identify by name an offshore wind turbine manufacturer interested in the U.S. offshore wind market?" MMS responded, "There are several". I responded, "Could you please be more specific, and name one?' "Thank you, good bye," stated MMS, and the teleconference was terminated by MMS.
I understand that a non-disclosure agreement exists between Cape Wind and National Grid. While I do think it is imperative that National Grid acknowledge that the Cape Wind project is at present a phantom wind energy project. As a reasonably informed private citizen, I am very concerned that National Grid and Cape Wind negotiations and cost projections are hardware-specific. Yet this specific hardware is “discontinued” and the offshore wind industry trend is now 5-7-10 MW. Which, of course, would significantly alter and influence cost v benefits analysis and projections.
Northboro, MA 01532
General Electric GE:
"GE Wind Energy Europe Managing Director Rainer Broring states the 3.6 MW GE 3.6l has been shelved for the moment, "GE's initial plan to install a prototype this year will therefore not materialise yet..."
"GE Wind, the subsidiary of the American energy giant General Electric, has left the risky business at sea altogether. Although seven 3.6-MW turbines have operated since 2003 ten kilometres off the Irish port of Arklow, the more secure business is on shore, says a spokesman of the company."
GE 3.6 MW wind turbine is "discontinued": (page 4):
GE 3.6 MW wind turbines "discontinued" status page 15 under "Offshore Wind Turbine Suppliers":
GE 3.6 MW offshore wind turbine status:
"General Electric 3.6sl (discontinued). Capacity 3.6 MW, rotor diameter 111 m. Hub height 75 m (from Cape Wind design specs). Seven 3.6s units producing power offshore at Arklow Bank since June 2004. See product brochure for GE 3.6sl. Based on experience at Arklow, GE had a set of engineering modifications to make for serial production of an offshore machine, but the company has to date decided not to compete in this market."
by Peter Asmus
Environmental News Network, January 29, 2002 http://www.bluefish.org/casualty.htm Power Politics: Enron Lives! (From Ken Lay’s “natural gas standard” to cap & trade today)
Another Enron Casualty: Wind power?
by Robert Bradley Jr.
December 5, 2009
Editor Note: This commentary is reproduced, with slight revision, from the December 2009 issue of POWER magazine.
As director of public policy analysis in my last seven years at Enron, I participated in many legislative and regulatory debates involving electricity, although the public policy thrust of the company was the opposite of what I personally believed was good social policy.
While I favored free markets, the business model of Ken Lay (a PhD economist with years of Washington regulatory experience) centered on special government favor. Enron, for example, had seven profit centers geared to government pricing/rationing of carbon dioxide (CO 2) emissions. And in the 1990s, the company was squarely behind a Btu tax. Today, Enron would be pushing cap and trade and a federal renewables mandate–and a lot of mandated energy efficiency with its profit centers in mind.
—Robert L. Bradley is CEO of the Institute for Energy Research and a blogger at Master-Resource.org. His new book, Capitalism at Work: Business, Government, and Energy, is inspired by the rise and fall of Enron. [cut] continue reading:
June 03, 2008 Enron's ghost, carried on the wind
As I read about the American Wind Energy Association's four-day annual conference this week in Houston, I was reminded of a conversation I had over lunch a few weeks ago with Robert Bradley. Bradley is a 16-year veteran of Enron, seven of which he spent as a speech writer for Ken Lay. He now heads the Institute for Energy Research, which is affiliated with Lindenwood University in St. Charles, Mo. As Bradley sees it, most of the "green energy" programs that are all the rage now date to initiatives supported by Enron. [cut] continue reading:
Climate Change Ponzi Scheme
Saul Griffith, 04.06.09, 06:00 AM EDT
How to ward off a Madoff-like moment with intergenerational extortion
Anti-Mafia prosecutor Antonio Scarpinato framed the wind energy conflicts perfectly--this also appeared in the UK Financial Times:
"This is the amazing thing -- that developers got public money to build wind farms that did not produce electricity," he said.
"Furthermore, locally-built wind farms are often bought up by multinational energy firms from other parts of Europe, none of which know the true identities of the original owners."
"A handful of people control the wind sector," said Scarpinato. "Many companies exist, but it is the same people behind them." Eight arrests have already been made."
'The Wind Industry Tells the Truth'