It seemed an unlikely coincidence that on the very day the community consultation process on the Cape Wind project began, another wind project should suddenly pop into the world, one conveniently out of sight of land, and apparently on the best of terms with the opponents of Cape Wind.

And indeed, it proved not to be a coincidence, as the general manager of the proponent company made clear on Monday.

After announcing that his company, Blue H USA LLC had applied to begin work on installing America’s first floating deep water turbines about 13 miles south-southwest of the Vineyard and 45 miles from New Bedford, Raymond Dackerman complained that “people keep saying” that the technology for deep-water wind generation was years away.

For “people,” read Cape Wind, which has put forward that argument against those who advocate moving wind generation further away offshore, where they don’t have to look at it.

Well, said Mr. Dackerman, “people” were wrong. The technology did exist, and it was here now, in the form of Blue H’s proposal.

The Blue H announcement was promptly embraced by Cape Wind’s opponents. Save Our Sound, the major group fighting Cape Wind, put out an enthusiastic press statement calling Blu H’s proposal “a very promising and hopeful development.”

While the impacts of the proposal would need to be fully reviewed, SOS said, “Blue H’s plans indicate the viability of deep-water wind and the fact that alternative sites to Nantucket Sound do exist, sites which may be more cost effective and less conflicted.”

And they called for the federal government to consider it as an alternative to Cape Wind.

Cape Wind’s supporters immediately noted the apparent closeness of the Blue H to their opponents. Anti-Cape Wind activists were prominent at the Blue H launch, they said. Blue H’s media spokesman, Martin Reilly, was outspoken against Cape Wind and also did work for Hy-Line Cruises, a corporate opponent of Cape Wind.

Cape Wind itself guardedly welcomed the new proposal.

“Cape Wind does not see this as a competing technology,” said spokesman Mark Rodgers. “There is a tremendous need for clean renewable energy, more than our project by itself can provide, and we’re pleased there are companies as well as governments doing research and technology work in the field of deep water offshore turbines, including floating turbines.

“We hope that Cape Wind becomes a reality and some years from now, projects like the one Blue H is discussing can also become a reality,” he said.

But while he thought the Blue H technology was promising, it was in the early stages of research and development.

Blue H’s idea of platforms which can generate power while floating in deep offshore water is still a long way from commercial reality. It now has one test unit in the water off Sicily, where it will hopefully work in water 300 feet deep.

Such platforms have large potential advantages: they can tap stronger and more regular winds, they weigh far less than anchored structures, can be assembled on shore and then towed into place, and are easier to dismantle at the end of their lives.

For a dispassionate analysis of whether such floating generators are a real, current alternative to anchored inshore structures like Cape Wind, the Gazette consulted Walt Musial, principal engineer at the National Wind Technology Center, part of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Mr. Musial said he personally hoped Blue H did succeed in developing “this new technology of floating turbines...

“But they’re the first group in the world ever to have tried this.

“Blue H appear very serious about this, but it cannot yet be viewed as an alternative to the kind of reliable energy Cape Wind would be able to produce,” Mr. Musial said.

“It hasn’t been proven yet,” he said of the floating turbine technology. “It’s very important people’s expectations don’t get beyond the demonstration project level.”