Kennedy: Why I oppose Cape Wind

[jpak]

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/columnists/view.bg?articleid=128727

Three years ago, I wrote in the Cape Cod Times that we need to promote wind energy through a comprehensive national policy that applies to all wind projects on the outer continental shelf. I still believe that today.

I also believe that wind energy has a strong future in our country. There is a broad bipartisan consensus to encourage alternative energy sources, and I support substantial state and federal tax incentives for wind energy development.

Along with those incentives, however, offshore developments for alternative energy should be subject to uniform standards of review that include the best interests of the states, businesses and communities that will be directly affected by siting decisions. That kind of review - with uniform standards - has not happened with the proposed Cape Wind development.

Instead, a private developer unilaterally selected the site and, in the energy bill passed by Congress last year, the Cape Wind project received specific exemptions from the new national offshore wind development policy.

<more>

[Warpy]

1. NIMBY

Sorry, Teddy, but the reviews should be environmental impact studies and provisions for maintaining shipping lanes, not preserving the view for rich people who built monuments to themselves on fragile coastlines.

You're on the wrong side on this one.

[wtmusic]

2. NIMBY

Wind power will run into this anywhere it's proposed (unless there aren't any people around to look at them).

[Drum]

4. Drum sez SIMBY

(Sure, In My Back Yard)
I personally love the windmills' look. They're beautiful. I was mesmerized, driving out near Joshua Tree (CA,) at the sight of them.
However, I live across the street from Central Park in NYC, so I don't think I'll be seeing any anytime soon.

WWWW? What's wrong with windmills?

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wtmusic]

14. The Catch-22

is there is only room to put them in places where there IS some scenery.

IMO they are ugly as hell. Everytime I drive out by Palm Springs probably 1 out of 10 is not working and the parts are laying around. When they break they're not worth hauling away so they're left to rust. There are access roads and power lines, and all I can think about is the way the desert looked without them.

They're safe, but it takes over 1000 of them to generate the power of a mid-size nuclear power plant--in a *strong* wind. With no wind they're worthless.

[Kittycat]

8. You can put a modest windmill in my back yard.

Hell, if it keeps my electricity bills down, and possibley earns me a little money - why not. As a matter of fact, put it in my front yard. I spend most of my time in the back of the house anyway.

Can one fit in about .06 acres? I think that's how much space is out front, LOL.

On Edit: We also get a fair amount of wind out here. I'd love to exchange the massive power station on the other side of my neighborhood with windmills, and solar panels. Anything really.

[wtmusic]

16. Solar panels are the best way for an individual homeowner to save energy

(besides conservation, of course)

In CA power utilities must buy up extra energy you generate. We have friends who only pays pennies every month for their electricity bill. The catch is they had to drop about $30,000 to have them installed.

There are low-interest loans available, and it obviously adds value to your house. If they can get the price down to where more people can afford them it would make a lot more sense than windmills. No moving parts, very low maintenance. It will take some government subsidies but what worthwhile program doesn't?

[Yupster]

10. We have loads of wind farms out here

in West Texas that were built by Enron and are now owned by some company in Florida.

From the highway it reminds me of the Planet of the Apes scene where they see crosses on the mesa.

Anyway, there's not much view to ruin, but they are doing terrible damage to the bat populations every night which bothers me quite a bit as I've always liked bats.

[blm]

12. The seabirds and and other sealife would be impacted, too, but few people

stop to think about that in their race to say "More environmentalist than thou" in a hasty way that ignores assessing the issue FULLY.

[Dead_Parrot]

17. Bats, seabirds and mamals...

...are impacted by turbines a hell of a lot less than they are by climate change: Whacking the odd Roseate Tern over the head is fuck all compared to wiping entire ecosystems (like the Great barrier reef). Besides, if the Nantucket nimbys actually gave a shit, they'd stop living in McMansions all the bloody breeding grounds and let the birds get on with it...

[blm]

34. Nantucket homes are hardly McMansions - they're old and part of a tourism

industry that also is a big part of the economy there.

There isn't an EASY answer on this particular issue for this particular location, and the fact that it was put into the legislation by Ted Stevens, the Alaskan eco-rapist, should tell you that there is something here VERY WRONG. It's a GOP faux-lefty dirty trick, imo.

[dufrenne]

3. Teddy...

that doesn't pass the laugh test. Bottom line, you only give a crap about your view...not the environment. I think those wind farms are actually elegant. Shame, you hyprocrite!

[jwirr]

5. When NO was being hit by Katrina there were maps of

off shore drilling platforms. They were black with locations. At the time I thought why would anyone want to look out over that? I am assuming that once upon a time the Gulf was beautiful but it is no longer when all you see are oil platforms. I think beauty is as important a part of nature as any other environmental aspect. It is the element that soothes our souls.

Here on the north shore of Lake Superior we are trying to preserve the beauty from too much development. We believe that it belongs to all of us - not just whoever owns the shoreline. I think the same principle applies anywhere in the US and those who fail to preserve the beauty of nature will fail nature altogether.

[Dead_Parrot]

6. Asshat. nt

Edit: Wow, an E/E thread gets onto the greatest page in 15 minutes. That has to be some sort of record... :)

[hatrack]

21. An EE thread on the Greatest Page? The mind reels . . .

:silly:

[Dead_Parrot]

25. Scary...

Of course, this is about weasel politics as much as the enviroment, so it escapes the normal E/E Hole of Oblivion...

sigh.

[chelsea0011]

7. Sorry Senator, you are flat out wrong on this issue.

Wind power is safe and clean. Estimates are that 75% of the electricity used on the Cape will be gained by Cape Wind. Is this perfect having all these turbines in Nantucket Sound? Of course not. But is it perfect creating another runway at Logan Airport as just was done? No. Was it perfect using the Mystic River to store LNG and having tankers unload oil to the tank farms there. No. How about the waste treatment processing plant in Boston Harbor at the end of Winthrop. No. Would I like to see Boston and area cities and towns without all these. Sure, why not. There are always trade offs. We have to make some projects happen for the good of all. Oil, plane travel, gas, cleaning waste all have to happen somewhere and the reasons for stopping Cape Wind never add up to anything but NIMBY.

[Ian David]

11. Called Kennedy's office. I'm not giving him a pass on this one. n /t

[NNadir]

13. This reminds me of the history of the birth of NIMBY on Long Island 1967.

Nantucket ain't got nutin' on Lloyd's Neck.

The rich people their gave the start up money for a whole movement of NIMBY.

The 111 acres that would have been involved in producing almost 0.1 exajoules of primary energy per year.

The local rich people moved aggressively to stop the deal. Later a tract of McMansions were built on the 111 acres.

http://www.lloydharbor-ny.org/village/brief_history.htm

[wtmusic]

15. Shhh...don't say "nuclear"

:scared:

[NNadir]

18. Me? Say "nuclear?"

Do you think I'm crazy?

:9

[hatrack]

22. I believe that's "new-kyoo-ler". This is Bush Country - get it right!!

:toast:

[Dead_Parrot]

27. Or Homer Simpson country...

...There's a Springrield in MA, y'know... :D

[BeFree]

19. Read what Kennedy said, people, and quit the knee jerking

Kennedy says there is, as of now, no good planning for this type of project, and what planning there is has been politically subverted. Therefore he doesn't support this particular project.

He is in favor of wind as an alternative, but when a project is placed, not on private land, but on public property, good, even excellent planning must come first.

Its part of lessons learned. As an example, look at nukes. Nukes got way ahead of proper planning and now we are stuck with the nuke problems. Today we find ourselves having to go back and fix those problems.

We don't want to make the same kinds of mistakes again, do we?

[KC21304]

23. I agree. You can tell by some of the responses

they did not read the article.

400,000 flights a year over the area.

[Dead_Parrot]

24. At what height?

The UK only had an investigation because of the Glasgow development, on a hill over looking the airport. Unless the water in Nantucket sound is doing something really weird, this isn't going going to be a problem. Granted, the Kennedys may have a penchant for barreling through Nantucket sound in light planes at 250 ft in zero visibility, but Darwin seems to be sorting that out anyway: It's no reason for the rest of us to choke to death.

[Dead_Parrot]

26. We know...

...you prefer coal.

[BeFree]

28. Shows just how much you don't know, or

... that you don't comprehend.

I think wind should be as heavily funded by fed $'s as much as nukes. And if I could, I'd shut down every steenkin' coal fired plant around, but leave the nukes running. Do I have to repeat myself, again to you Dead P?

Pondering this situation, it seems to me the best place to put wind turbines is on tall buildings, ya know, the same places that use tons of energy everday, and every night. On top of those buildings, hanging off the sides, whatever.

If the plans for offshore windfarms are well laid out and if executed properly, I have no problem putting them offshore. IF.

[Dead_Parrot]

29. No danger of you repeating yourself...

You called me a Nazi for my support of nuclear power while you were defending coal in this thread, and now you saying you'd shut down coal in favour of nuclear power.

And now you ponder wind turbines hanging off the sides of buildings. Pure genius. :eyes:

Ponder harder.

[BeFree]

30. Read it again, for the first time, obviously

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=51598&mesg_id=51809

I did call you a nuke-nazi. It was kinda like the soup-nazi that Seinfeld used to describe that, well, soup-nazi. Not that you are a Nazi, that would be terrible to call you that, but your stance, come to think of it, is a bit hitleresque, eh?

[NNadir]

32. You seem to believe that energy should come from nowhere.

You must be an American through and through, because you have no concept whatsoever of the laws of physics.

This plant, under all circumstances is the safest possible means of making energy. I support nuclear power, but I freely confess that when analyzed, wind has a lower external cost, in fact it has an external cost that is roughly equivalent to nuclear power in global warming impact, and is lower than the cost of nuclear power in other areas. http://www.itas.fzk.de/deu/tadn/tadn013/frbi01a.htm (See table 1.) (Both nuclear and wind have 1/10th the global impact of solar PV electricity.)

I note that if plants like this are not built in as many places as they can be, the sea is going to be a few meters higher in the place where Nantucket used to be, coal boy, and that is definitely going to effect the ecosystem there.

Oh, and there isn't going to be anyone flying planes either when that happens. Your precious oil platforms will also be challenged by rising seas.

I don't see how any rational person could oppose Cape Wind on any grounds.

[hatrack]

20. Sorry, Ted. Take a hike, get a clue, don't let the door hit you on this

:wtf:

[sandnsea]

31. 17 sites were evaluated

By the Corps of Engineers. This wasn't a unilateral selection and there just doesn't seem to be any truly valid reason to oppose the project. Although I do think it's the equivalent of putting a wind farm at the Grand Canyon and wouldn't support that. That's the only reason to reject it though, to preserve a unique area of the US. Cape Cod is a National Seashore, after all.

http://www.capewind.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=280&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

[One_Life_To_Give]

33. Was everyone supposed to wait for you to think of it Ted?

Uniform Federal Standards, sure.

Do we need to remind you that these people invested millions of dollars in studies for where best to build this. While congress did squat.

If these individuals hadn't gone out and invested their own money for this. We wouldn't be talking about Any offshore wind farms in the US.