To the Editor:
There are many good reasons to be opposed to offshore wind farms.
A few are that they kill birds, possibly disrupt the ecosystem and could endanger marine life; as well as faulty blades breaking and creating hazards to both mariners and beachgoers, the lights are unacceptable, and they are “ugly,” and many more legitimate reasons.
As we go into the new year, this debate won’t go away, and there will be many more stories and comments. But, I ask that we keep it somewhat real.
Here are the three arguments that — in my opinion — top the “silly” list.
- “We don’t get none of the power.” If you believe that, please look up the basic concepts of how electricity and the grid work, then take a trip to New Hampshire and Connecticut, and thank all the people there for taking the risk of having nuclear reactors in their backyards that they don’t get none of the power from ’cause “it all goes to Massachusetts.”
- “When will my electric bill go down?” I assume this is just a rhetorical question, because most of the people asking this question actually expect wind power will somehow increase their bills. But, they certainly won’t change it one way or the other until they are actually built and producing electricity. Simple math tells us that since all the offshore wind farms under some construction or permitting process off the New England coast will at best only provide one-third of the power of the New England power grid, they could put it in at $1 per kwh, or give it to us for free, and it would make very little difference in your bill. (The current average price is 13¢ –– Vineyard Wind 1 has a 20-year contract to put it at 9¢.)
- “They are foreign-owned.” Yup –– true that is. The U.S. is way behind on this, due to political priorities that suppressed our industrial research –– the fact is there are no U.S.-based companies that can do this. By the way, Jim Beam, Anheuser-Busch, Alka-Seltzer, Trader Joe’s, Citgo, Burger King, Vaseline, and hundreds of other well-known companies are foreign-owned. The majority of automobiles on U.S. highways were built by “foreign-owned” companies. So what? The Europeans complain that U.S.-based companies sell stuff there. We live in a global economy, after all.
But most of all, let’s try to be civil. Please!
Happy New Year.
Don Keller
Vineyard Haven
I agree with Don Keller on one thing — this debate should stay civil. But civility shouldn’t be used to dismiss Island concerns as “silly,” especially when those concerns come from people who actually live with the consequences.
Most Islanders understand how the electric grid works. When people here say “we don’t get the power,” they’re not confused — they’re talking about fairness. We’re asked to accept turbines on our horizon, cables in shared waters, navigational changes, and long-term uncertainty, while receiving no priority access, no rate relief, no resilience benefit, and no meaningful say once permits are issued. That isn’t ignorance; it’s experience.
Comparisons to inland nuclear plants miss why this feels different on the Vineyard. Offshore wind is placed directly into a working seascape tied to fishing, boating, tourism, and the Island’s identity. Here, the horizon isn’t theoretical — it’s economic and lived.
The electric-bill question isn’t naïve either. Accepting permanent offshore industrialization while being told it won’t meaningfully affect bills is not reassurance; it’s an admission.
Foreign ownership raises the same issue: accountability. Multinational firms can sell or walk away. The Vineyard cannot.
The irony is unmistakable: those least affected speak most confidently, while the people expected to absorb the impact are told their objections are “silly.” That isn’t realism or civility — it’s dismissal dressed up as reason.
Murray– thank you for your civil comment. I pretty much expected a response such as yours, and as always, your comments are reasonable and well thought out. But I will double down on my 3 points.
“Silly” is about as civil of a word that I could think of. People who understand how the grid works don’t say that, but not everyone understands how it all works.
People who drive past nuclear plants and the associated infrastructure, (such as 150 ft towers) as well as the risks involved don’t get any rate relief. Remember there was some real debate here about the EMF, and there are hazards associated with high power lines– think fires in California and the current state of “on site storage” of nuclear waste. . Any company, either foreign of domestic can walk away from any project. I also think that wind turbines are the easiest to decommission. With the removal of a few thousand gallons of lubricants and the blades they could literally be cut off at the sea floor and dropped into the ocean if they weren’t interested in salvaging the millions of dollars worth of recyclable steel
Murray Harvey thinks clearly and the word “”experience”” is key. Experience tells us that subsidized experiments don’t benefit anyone but hurt the taxpayers and projects predicated upon the dreaded “”climate change”” are too vague and hurt the pocketbook.
Please note study from Harvard:
https://www.harvardmagazine.com/research/radiation-research-st-louis-cancer-rates-manhattan-project#:~:text=An%20aerial%20view%20of%20Coldwater,Subscribe%20to%20our%20Friday%20email:
This is where big money is being invested.
It isn’t what I want for YOUR grandchildren
or mine.
If you care at all about the children on the Navajo
Reservation (where the uranium comes from)
we will build wind turbines quickly
and stop the nuclear nonsense.
Don — thank you for the reply. I appreciate the civil exchange, and I take your points. That’s precisely why I objected to the word “silly.” It reduces legitimate Island concerns to a question of misunderstanding.
When people here say “we don’t get the power,” many understand how the electric grid works. They are not confused about electrons. They are describing an imbalance between local impact and local benefit. We are asked to accept permanent industrial infrastructure in shared waters — visible, navigational, and operational — without priority access, rate relief, resilience benefits, or leverage once permits are issued. That shorthand may be imperfect, but it is not ignorance.
The nuclear comparison illustrates the difference rather than resolves it. Inland plants exist within broader mainland systems. Offshore wind on the Vineyard is placed directly into a working seascape tied to fishing, ferry routes, boating, tourism, and the Island’s identity. Here, proximity and permanence matter more.
On decommissioning, I remain unconvinced. “Easiest to decommission” is not the same as assured, responsible removal, especially decades from now under different ownership and market conditions.
I share your call for civility. But civility should make room for place based skepticism, not dismiss it.