| Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005. |
Reader weighs in on proposed wind farm
Credit: Letter to the Editor | The Coastal Point | April 8, 2021 | www.coastalpoint.com ~~
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Having read yet more articles regarding the proposed wind farm off the coast of Delaware (Coastal Point and Delaware Today), I am still at a loss to understand the justification for the current proposal. I am sure I am not the only Delawarean in such a position. First and foremost, I fail to understand why DNREC would sign a MOU for this project without first allowing for public input. Taking such action is a clear abuse of the trust placed with DNREC.
A) In reading the current articles, it appears that the windmills are being placed off the coast of Delaware (in part) because of the greater opposition in Maryland. So, this means it is okay to have the windmills off of our coast because we don’t have as well of an organized protest voice? Is that fair?
B) I also do not understand why the power must come ashore in Delaware. Why not in Maryland or Virginia? Because they complain more? It also appears we are taking Orsted’s word at face value when they state that the ideal spot is Fenwick Island. Was anyone from Delaware involved in participating or reviewing this study?
C) If the power must come ashore in Delaware, why does the energy go to Maryland? Why not Delaware?
D) Similarly, why doesn’t Delaware get the off-shore energy credits for this project?
E) One article claims that there will be 1,400 new jobs created for Maryland. Why not for Delaware?
Clearly, we are the ones sacrificing and Maryland gets the benefits. Lastly—and this is a big one – If this project were to go forward (despite the opposition), Delaware would be very foolish to accept any one-time payout as compensation. We all know that such a payment would disappear very quickly. What would be best is some sort of agreement which provides an unending income stream. This perpetual source of revenue could then be applied to the state budget on a continuing basis. In the long run, this strategy would provide a much greater benefit for our state.
I would recommend an annual amount that also contains an escalation clause or formula to be applied regularly. The escalation could be tied to an inflation index, a cost of energy index or even based on the amount of energy annually provided by the project. The point is, that Delaware should receive a continuing (and increasing) benefit from this project just as Maryland will. To accept anything less is very short sighted of our representatives.
In every way, it seems Delaware receives the short end of the stick on the current proposal. We need to correct that.
David Moeller
Millville
This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.
The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.
| Wind Watch relies entirely on User Contributions |
 (via Stripe) |
 (via Paypal) |
Share:
[ Short URL: https://wind-watch.org/news/?p=100279 ]
