Commercial lease given for Massachusetts wind farm

Posted on

The federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement said it issued a commercial lease of approximately 46 square miles of submerged lands in Nantucket (Mass.) Sound to the Cape Wind Energy Project for the construction and operation of an offshore wind farm.

The 33-year lease provides for payment of $88,278 in annual rent prior to production and a 2 to 7 percent operating fee after production starts, according to Bryant’s Marine News.

The project plan calls for 130 3.6-megawatt wind turbine generators to be arranged in a grid pattern in Nantucket Sound. The transmission cables for the project, if approved, would pass through Massachusetts’ submerged lands.

With a maximum electricity output of 468 megawatts and an average anticipated output of 183 megawatts, the project is expected to generate electricity equivalent to three-quarters of the Cape and nearby islands’ electricity needs.

Click here to read the notice in the Federal Register.

Welcome to TradeOnlyToday’s premium content! To continue reading, please register now, for access to 10 free stories per month. Or subscribe, for unlimited access to all TradeOnlyToday content!

Click here to Register ... it's free!

Basic subscription: Registered members get free access to 10 premium content stories each month!

Not a member yet? Click here to Register!

Already a member? Click here to Login!

Subscribe ... for unlimited access!

Individual subscription: $29 for unlimited site access for one year.

Small Business subscription: $140 for unlimited site access for up to 10 members of a company for one year.

Corporate subscription: $300 for unlimited site access for all members of a company for one year.

You may close this dialog after seconds.

Comments

6 comments on “Commercial lease given for Massachusetts wind farm

  1. Paul Singley

    GOOD!!!  Wind may have it’s drawbacks, but we’re FINALLY moving away from fossil fuels in an active matter, not just giving GREEN lip service. The price per killowatt is higher than we’d like, but its stable. It’ll look like a bargain in years to come with increases in oil, coal, gas. The initial costs of new tech is always high, look at the prices of VCR’s. I bought a 200 watt solar pannel 2 years ago for $700, it’s down to $400 now. Don’t get too hung up on initial prices.
     

  2. George

    Another ploy to keep libtards happy with all the other junk science they purvey and like everything else, the cost is in never-never land.  It’s all good as long as someone else is paying for it (ie subsidies).  Truth is the ‘demonized’ fossil fuel built and powered this and other nations to prosperous levels for many generations.
    There is no shortage of energy anywhere, and by artificially driving up the costs we in boating are living proof that our industry suffers.

  3. Lowprofile

    Here is a fair proposal, the estimated cost of “wind energy” is .18 per kwh as compared to apprx. .08 per kwh for fossil fuel. Why not all you idiots that think this is such a grand idea fund the difference and as this wonderful technology improves and becomes cost effective we will repay you w/ interest.
    Sounds fair to me. I personally have had enough of you clowns spending my money on your failed projects.  We all know how successful and cost effective ethenol fuel has become, don’t we?  Now name one just one concept that you liberals can prove is actual or successful, I almost forgot, GLOBAL WARMING!  Now there is a proven liberal theory!

  4. Catman

    Conserving fossil fuels now leaves us more fuel for our boats and other toys, lower fuel demands will lower prices.

  5. Neal

    Placement just doen’t make sense.
    I just can’t understand how so many people see the forest but not the trees.  Here we have many people saying that the cost of wind is more than twice the cost of fossil fuel and in the same breath stating that the cost of technology will come down and most likely lower than that of fossil fuels.  As a Patent Attorney I see inventions on a daily basis that do result in lower prices for their respective technological arts. Doesn’t it make sense to wait till the inventive technology has brought cost lower than that of fossil fuel?  Instead we rush to implement current technology at a higher cost.  Once the turbines and transmission lines are in place there is not going to be a magical lowering of cost.  The cost is the use and installation of the current level of technology.  And none of these arguments address the loss of historic beauty of the cape and islands which is priceless.
    Put the turbines in the plain states where there is much more wind and no national treasures to be destroyed.  Most of the population of the US lives on the coasts.  Why burden the coasts with these unsightly dragons when there is a perfectly sound area to place them which does not include the cost of underwater installation, hazard, and maintenance?
    Here is a Pro Wind Energy Site stating that the best place in the country for constant wind is the middle of the country not the coasts.
    http://www.energyjustice.net/solutions/wind

  6. lawrence warner

    The rent will not be able to sustain a team to manage the tennants use/abuse of the waters.
     There is hydroelectric electricity from Canada for .08  which is not fossil. Hello!!!
     In 20 something years or less there will be MAJOR costs to take this old obsolete mess out of Vineyard Sound. Who will incur that bill? Why do I think it will be absorbed by the landlord which everyone really knows is the taxpayers. What a country!!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. For more information, please see our Comments Policy.

Vote Today

Will you be attending IBEX and the Fort Lauderdale International Boat Show?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Search Boats for Sale

Length
Year
Price

Login to Trade Only Today

Lost Password