No shortage of wind farm spin

Supporters of a restriction proposed by U.S. Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, that would ban turbines within 1½ miles of shipping lanes include the two largest ferry service providers on the Cape and Islands: the Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority and Hy-Line Cruises.

The two operators, which carry 3 million passengers a year on routes straddling the project's proposed footprint, predict turbines on Nantucket Sound would become dangerous obstacles and disrupt marine radar.

''The area is very congested at times with commercial and recreational traffic,'' Wayne Lamson, Steamship Authority general manager, wrote to House and Senate conferees last week. ''With the wind farm as currently proposed ... it has the potential for creating a significant hazard to safe navigation for our vessels and other users of the waterways.''

But some veteran pilots disagree, calling the predicted risks overstated, and the proposed restrictions unwarranted.

''The area they're proposing the turbines, the ships don't go in there anyway,'' said Larry Palmer, 59, a veteran captain and senior pilot with the Northeast Marine Pilot's Association.

''The only thing that the wind farm is going to do,'' he said, ''is provide a good aide from which to navigate.''

On both sides, advocates cite experiences in Europe, where offshore wind farms have been a reality for years.

In Denmark, wind advocates say, offshore turbines spin near shipping routes without incident.

In the United Kingdom, opponents respond, fears about the impact on radar have promoted strict regulations.

The Cape Wind proposal would be the nation's first offshore wind farm. The ambitious plan to put 130 417-foot-high turbines in Nantucket Sound is under review by state and federal agencies.

The U.S. Coast Guard, which is responsible for enforcing safety on Nantucket Sound and is one of several agencies looking at Cape Wind, is still compiling policies for offshore wind farms. While the agency has not offered an opinion on the proposed restriction, Coast Guard leaders were consulted early in congressional discussions of the Young amendment, said Mike Sollosi, chief of the Office of Navigational Systems with the Coast Guard.

''We didn't comment on the distance, so much as the fact that we'd rather it be less prescriptive,'' he said.

In other words, the Coast Guard was concerned about imposing a blanket provision that applies to all projects.

''I'm not saying that 1½ miles is wrong,'' Sollosi said. ''I'm just saying we don't know if it's right or wrong.''

According to Sollosi, Coast Guard leaders would prefer to judge each project on its particular circumstances - how much ship traffic passes by, the types of ships and how they are used.

In crafting the Coast Guard's policy, the agency has looked at policies in the United Kingdom and Denmark, Sollosi said.

The Danish regulations, he said, are a bit too general. And while the UK guidelines are more to their liking, he said they may be a bit too specific.

The proposed 1½-mile buffer comes directly from the United Kingdom, where ongoing studies suggest marine radar can be impacted by wind turbines within that distance.

In a five-page letter sent to congressional colleagues Feb. 15, Young cited the British studies - and made specific reference to the Cape Wind project at length.

While Young said ''objective standards'' would help promote the development of wind projects offshore, Cape Wind officials say his legislation is likely to hinder industry growth.

At the very least, they say, Young's amendment would doom the Cape project. ''It would remove a substantial area of Horseshoe Shoal from being able to have wind turbines,'' said Mark Rodgers, a Cape Wind spokesman. ''It would no longer be economically viable to build.''

Rodgers' claim is difficult to verify. Cape Wind has released no concrete number on how many turbines would be affected by Young's amendment or any cost analysis on how many turbines would be needed for the project to turn a profit.

Cape Wind officials insist Young's navigation restriction is unnecessary. Ninety percent of the project would be built in waters shallower than 30 feet, they say.

In fact, between the narrow diameter of the turbine towers (about 16 feet), the wide spacing between turbines, (one-third to one-half miles), and the distance from major shipping lanes (1,497 feet at the closest point), they say collisions would be unlikely. And they point to Denmark, where the Middelgrunden wind farm near Copenhagen is situated less than one-third of a mile from a busy shipping lane and has not yielded any problems since it was built in 2001.

''I could not be more convinced that this amendment is clearly excessive,'' said Richard Elrick, a 20-year maritime veteran on the sound and former Hy-Line captain. ''You are much more likely to run aground than hit a turbine.''

David Scudder, a Hy-Line vice president, said the issue is not that simple. He worries recreational boaters would be more likely to sail into the sound's shipping lanes to avoid the turbines - especially on foggy days.

Two years ago, retired Coast Guard admiral John McGown prepared a report for the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound in which he called the wind farm plan ''fatally flawed.''

Charles Vinick, CEO of the Alliance, agreed, calling the Sound a unique site that sits between three busy shipping routes that are prone to foggy conditions.

''The focus ends up being on the politics of this,'' Vinick said. ''What this is about, and what people don't want to talk about, is that this is about public safety.''

With no national policy, Vinick said U.S. leaders have no choice but to look at the British precedent. If there is a need to adjust the policy, he said, it can be changed later.

According to a draft guideline, the British Coast Guard has suggested that wind farms greater than 2 nautical miles from a shipping lane are ''tolerable.'' But inside 1½ miles, the agency reports, the projects interfere with radar and require ''very close scrutiny.''

The British Chamber of Shipping has urged that future projects be delayed until guidelines are set.

Cape Wind supporters insist the lesson from Great Britain is that each proposal should be considered on its own merits .

''They explicitly reject a one-size-fits-all, cookie-cutter approach,'' Rodgers said of British policy.

Cliff Carroll, founder of Windstop.org, said the Cape site, if taken on its own, wouldn't pass safety muster.

''On a case-by-case basis, they're not going to survive the scrutiny,'' Carroll said. ''Nantucket Sound is a unique place. You have heavy fogs, you're surrounded on three sides by shipping lanes, and you have three airports.''

Adm. Richard Gurnon, president of the Massachusetts Maritime Academy, yesterday called the 1½-mile restriction ''a red herring.''

Gurnon said smart birds would be able to avoid the turbines and ''so would smart mariners.''