Actually, it is the mouth of the Delaware Bay where it gets quite windy. So the prime location is a bit further down the coast line from the beaches.

Oh, I hope that this passes!

As a Jersey Shore girl my whole life, I know the locals will probably fight this tooth and nail, citing the "obstructed" view of nature that will result, the hassle of construction, the birds, etc. etc. etc. This proposal presents Cape May with the unique opportunity of retaining all of its old-world quaint charms that make it such a popular tourist destination while taking a leap forward with such a bold step toward renewable energy. The good press that will come if this actually happens might even garner national media attention, which will only provide added benefits for the town (city?) of Cape May.

I can't wait to see how this works out!

There is also an on-going debate of a wind farm off the rehoboth beach to bethany beach stretch of Delaware. Talks have been going on for a few months now after the Bluewater Wind proposal was pushed under the table because of the excessive cost. Now with utility companies in Delaware talking about raising the costs of energy again the support for Bluewater Wind is intesifying.

I wonder how the US Coast Guard feels about this? Cape May, NJ is home to the USCG Basic Training. I wonder if it would also affect USCG operations with the fleets that are also stationed there?

I think your snide comments might be premature in this case. Cape May is the largest hawk migration site in the U.S. bar none. It is also a huge stopover site for shorebirds and songbirds, and large numbers of seabirds frequent its waters in winter. The same factors that make it attractive as a wind farm site make it an internationally-famous bird habitat. Birds of all sorts stream through the area each spring and fall. The large numbers of birds of prey that use the area have long been documented via the hawk counts at the state park just south of the town. These migration periods run from early September to Thanksgiving and again from early April to the middle of June.

Your own analysis introduces the idea of looking at mortality (M) of a function of exposure (E) and hazard (H) to individual birds. As you state
"'E' is obviously highest where birds migrate, breed, and feed in flocks near wind farms. There are very windy places where 'E' is low all year: a dearth of birds. And there are certainly windy places where 'E' is high only during a brief migratory period, or for a limited number of species which fly at a certain elevation."

I believe this is a case, even considered on a global basis, where "E" doesn't get any bigger. Do a quick check on the uniqueness of Cape May's role in safeguarding North American bird populations. I hope it will open your minds to the possibility that this may not be just another standoff between wealthy property owners and alternative energy supporters.

For people like me who came to our environmental beliefs through the love of the natural world, this is a very tough call. I see the destruction coal is doing here in the Midwest and am thrilled with the many wind farms that are sprouting up throughout Central Illinois where I live. I have traveled to enjoy the birds at Cape May. I don't own a fabulous beach house there or know anyone who does. But I am seriously concerned about the fate of these birds especially when a site I respect writes them off so quickly.

I wouldn't rely on the coal industry association as my main source of information about the environmental impacts of coal. Why use the wind energy association as the main source of your supposed myth-busting about wind and birds? Thinking globally and acting locally doesn't automatically invalidate local concerns.

=== author's response follows ====
Excellent comment.