Sen. Lamar Alexander calls Mass. offshore wind farm 'a taxpayer rip-off'

WASHINGTON - Clean-energy proponents who want to reduce the country's dependence on fossil fuels celebrated last month when the federal government approved the nation's first offshore wind farm off Cape Cod, Mass.

"It's obviously a history-making project," said Tom Vinson, director of federal regulatory affairs for the American Wind Energy Association.

But to U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, the $1 billion Cape Wind project is a costly, colossal mistake.

"It's a taxpayer rip-off," the Maryville Republican said. "It creates a puny amount of very expensive electricity. Taxpayers in Tennessee will be paying extra for it because of the taxpayer subsidies. And it will destroy a very beautiful Nantucket Sound."

Rising electricity prices and concerns over climate change have given fuel to the wind energy movement in the United States, and supporters say the Obama administration's decision to move ahead with the Cape Wind project is a sign the nation is ready to embrace a clean-energy resource that European countries have been harnessing for years.

While wind farms are in operation in several states, including Tennessee, the 130-turbine Cape Wind project off Cape Cod will be the nation's first offshore wind farm.

The turbines will be arranged in a grid pattern over a 125-square-mile area - the closest will be about five miles from the shore - and will be capable of producing 468 megawatts of wind power, enough to meet about 75 percent of the electricity demand for Cape Cod and nearby islands.

A dozen other offshore wind farms are in the works off the coasts of New Jersey, Rhode Island, Delaware, North Carolina, Texas and other states.

"There's at least a couple thousand megawatts that are in various stages of development already," Vinson said.

But while supporters say wind is a clean, inexhaustible energy resource, detractors argue it produces just a small amount of electricity and defiles some of the country's most scenic landscapes with towering metal monstrosities.

"It's the equivalent of putting hundreds of miles of 50-story towers with blades the size of football fields on the top of the Smoky Mountains and the Blue Ridge Parkway and the Appalachian range," said Alexander, one of one of wind energy's most vocal critics in Congress.

Cape Wind will cover an area the size of Manhattan in New York but will generate about the same amount of electricity that could be produced by a small nuclear reactor one-tenth the size of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Watts Bar Nuclear Reactor, Alexander said.

"A more sensible way to produce carbon-free, clean energy would be to have a small nuclear reactor," he said. "They are more reliable and would be cheaper. It would be just as clean, and it would occupy much less space."

The Obama administration has said it would like to see wind produce at least 20 percent of the nation's electricity in 20 years, but Alexander says that goal is preposterous.

"It would mean 186,000 wind turbines that would cover an area the size of West Virginia," he said. "It would create thousands of miles of new transmission lines through backyards and scenic areas. And it would produce about the same amount of electricity as 100 new nuclear plants, most of which could be located on the sites where we already have nuclear plants."

Wind is a useful supplement to the electrical grid in some places, Alexander said, but "it's only 1.3 percent of all electricity produced in the United States, and it's no substitute for a nuclear plant, a coal plant, a natural gas plant which produces electricity all the time. Wind only produces when the wind blows."

In Tennessee, the wind doesn't blow enough to make wind power a real option, Alexander said. Besides, "I don't think most Tennesseans want to see towers three times the size of Neyland Stadium decorating the tops of our scenic mountains," he said.

Vinson said Alexander's concerns are unfounded. Wind energy is clean, safe and cost-effective, he said. Offshore wind farms might be more expensive upfront, he said, but over time they are a good investment because the cost of wind-generated power can be stable for years since it is not subject to fluctuating fuel prices.

As for the argument that wind turbines are unsightly, "obviously there are some people who aren't going to like how they look," Vinson said. But, "we don't set public policy in this country based on whether somebody thinks something is ugly or not."

Alexander owns land in Nantucket that is on the opposite side of the offshore power site. The wind turbines won't be visible from his lot, he said, so they won't have any negative impact on his property. If anything, he said, the project might cause his property values to go up since people on the other side of the island will be looking for some place to get away from the sight of the windmills on the horizon.

Speaking out against the wind farm is "probably against my own self-interest," he said. But, "there are better ways to generate that kind of electricity.''