Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Cape Cod gets a wind farmFollow

#1 Apr 28 2010 at 12:16 PM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
Quote:
Salazar approves Cape wind farm
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100428/NEWS/4280326

BOSTON - US Interior Secretary Ken Salazar approved the proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm today, a move proponents herald as a giant leap forward and opponents decry as a dangerous misstep.

His approval is the culmination of nearly a decade of review by local, state and federal agencies of the plan to build 130 wind turbines on Horseshoe Shoal in the Sound.

The so-called “record of decision” to approve a lease for the plan by Cape Wind Associates, LLC, opens the door for an expected onslaught of lawsuits by the project's opponents.

"This will be the first of many projects up and down the Atlantic coast," Salazar said standing next to Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, a wind farm supporter.

Salazar said he was approving the Cape Wind project “with modifications that will protect the historical, cultural and environmental resources” of Nantucket Sound. Among these were the reduction of the project from 170 turbines to 130 turbines - a requirement the developer has already made to reduce the visual impact of the turbines - and to do additional marine archeological surveys.

The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) restated their intention this week to pursue legal action if Salazar approved the project, saying that the decision is a “litmus test” for promises made by President Barack Obama's administration to the American Indian tribes. They argue that the 440-foot tall wind turbines will interfere with important sunrise ceremonies and disturb ancient burial grounds in once-dry land beneath the Sound.

Officials today said there would be mitigation funds made available to the Indian tribes by the wind farm developer and by the state that may possibly be used for cultural activities.

Cape Wind has scheduled a 2:15 p.m. press conference at the Park Plaza Hotel in Boston. A live broadcast of the press conference may be available at Cape Wind's website: www.capewind.org.

There is no official word yet on plans today by wind farm foe Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound.

Elected officials and others weighed in this afternoon on Salazar's ruling:

· U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.: “This day was a long time in coming, but I believe the future of wind power in the Massachusetts and the United States will be stronger knowing that the process was exhaustive, and that it was allowed to work and wind its way through the vetting at all levels with public input."

· U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass.: "I am strongly opposed to the administration's misguided decision to move forward with Cape Wind," "While I support the concept of wind power as an alternative source of energy, Nantucket Sound is a national treasure that should be protected from industrialization."

· Massachusetts Republican Party Chairman Jennifer Nassour: "It's no surprise that Governor Deval Patrick would support such an imprudent decision on Cape Wind from his buddy President Obama. Instead of preserving the environmental sanctuary of the Cape Cod shoreline, Governor Patrick chose to line his campaign coffers and pay back National Grid and Cape Wind for their sweetheart deal. Governor Patrick should immediately return donations from National Grid executives.”

· State Rep. Jeffrey Perry, R-Sandwich: "Secretary Salazar's approval of this project today is not the final step in the process. There is still a long way to go, and officials are jumping the gun if they think this project is a done deal."

· Marstons Mills resident and former Massachusetts Sen. Paul Kirk told the Boston Herald Tuesday night: "Nantucket Sound is a very special place for a lot of reasons." He added: "In this time of high unemployment and the need for job creation, we're talking about a lot of taxpayer subsidies for a project with (turbines) that are being manufactured offshore."

· American Wind Energy Association: "AWEA applauds Secretary Salazar for approving the Cape Wind project. Such forward-thinking decisions are necessary for the U.S. to realize the many environmental and economic benefits of offshore wind. The U.S. offshore wind industry will build on the success and the lessons learned from the nearly twenty years of experience in Europe to provide clean, pollution-free, electricity along the coasts and in the Great Lakes."

Cape Wind opponents also argue the project would have been a danger to public safety, hurt the environment and damage the region's tourism industry and real estate values.

Despite these objections, the federal government and the state of Massachusetts have returned largely favorable reviews of the project, including environmental studies that have found minimal impacts on wildlife. Cape Wind's supporters say the project, which could be the country's first offshore wind farm, will pave the way for clean energy sources and the fight against climate change.

The project could still be stymied if the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decides in a case heard earlier this year to require more review by the state or the Cape Cod Commission. The Cape's regional planning and regulatory agency rejected the project on procedural grounds two years ago.

Cape Wind must also secure the Federal Aviation Administration's approval to locate the turbines in the Sound.

And, the company needs to sign an agreement to sell the power, a key to convincing investors and banks to back the project, which has been estimated to cost upwards of $2 billion. Negotiations with the utility about a power purchase agreement are ongoing.

Today's announcement comes as Salazar's boss and Patrick's good friend, President Barack Obama, makes a two-day, three-state Midwestern trip, focusing on his economic and clean-energy programs as job creators. Yesterday, the president toured the Iowa plant of a German company, Siemens, that makes blades for wind turbines and is set to supply turbines for the proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm.

Patrick said that Siemens will locate its headquarters for offshore wind projects in Massachusetts because of the Cape Wind project. There is already a testing center for large scale turbines under construction in Charlestown, according to the governor.

“We are on our way. ... The whole world will be our customer,” Patrick said in describing how Massachusetts will become a center for wind energy.

Opponents wanted the project moved out of Nantucket Sound. The late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, whose Hyannisport family compound is on Nantucket Sound, fought Cape Wind and termed it a special-interest giveaway and would mar a pristine landscape.

Times staff writer Karen Jeffrey and the Associated Press contributed to this story.


Quite an interesting background to this. I grew up on Cape Cod until I hit 18, so obviously I'm familiar with the wind farm. I know a ton of people on both sides, and the issue itself is not inherently partisan... well, parts of it are, but as many places like to point out, the deceased Ted Kennedy was very much opposed to the wind farm, likely due to the real estate the Kennedy clan owns that looks out over Nantucket Sound. The Native American clan on Cape Cod is also opposed to it, although some of their stated reasons (such as sun rituals being interfered with by the turbines) have been debunked. Research by the American Corps of Engineers showed that no significant environmental harm would occur due to the turbines, although Salazar approved this with a reduction of 170 to 130 turbines and more surveys to be done.

There are reactions and opinions from a few of the names in MA in the article. Obviously it's not completely nonpartisan (FOX News's article on it had to use the word "controversial" 4 times to make sure it sunk in), but I think it's pretty neat. This entire legal debate has been going on for almost a decade, so it's nice that maybe they can finally start building now.

Edit: Not that it matters, but I feel squarely in the "for" category here. Ever since high school the majority of people my age couldn't understand all the crying from opponents. Almost all of it came down to NIMBYism; the most vocal folks owned real estate on the shore that they used only during the summer, and as they cried crocodile tears over preserving Cape Cod's history and environment, they drove around in gas-guzzlers to the newest McDonald's plopped down by the beach. Bah humbug to them, I say. Kennedy clan included.

Edited, Apr 28th 2010 2:21pm by LockeColeMA
#2 Apr 28 2010 at 12:23 PM Rating: Good
I am totally in favor of this with the exception of the taxpayer-funded subsidy to the developer. If you can't make it work without making taxpayers foot the bill, better luck next time. It makes me a little giddy inside that Teddy will fume from the grave over it.
#3 Apr 28 2010 at 12:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I have no real problem with using subsidies to help emerging industries such as this.

Coal, oil and nuclear get a tidy sum in direct and indirect subsidies and saying wind power has to "make it work" on their own against currently subsidized power industries seems a bit misguided.

Edited, Apr 28th 2010 1:46pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4 Apr 28 2010 at 1:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel wrote:
I have no real problem with using subsidies to help emerging industries such as this.

Coal, oil and nuclear get a tidy sum in direct and indirect subsidies and saying wind power has to "make it work" on their own against currently subsidized power industries seems a bit misguided.

I thought the comment would be measured against my numerous denunciations of coal, oil and nuclear subsidies as well. Oh well, for the record I think those should have to stand on their own, as well.
#5 Apr 28 2010 at 1:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
I thought the comment would be measured against my numerous denunciations of coal, oil and nuclear subsidies as well.

Yeah, I left my Policies of MoebiusLord hint card at home today. Anyway, removing their subsidies today wouldn't change the fact that their current infrastructure was built upon numerous subsidies. I don't think helping other technologies get a start in replacing them is a bad thing.

Also, removing the subsidies from oil, coal and nuclear is never, ever going to happen so it might make for a nice pipe dream where they all had to compete equally but, realistically, it makes more sense to help wind power along.

Edited, Apr 28th 2010 2:26pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#6 Apr 28 2010 at 1:34 PM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
I thought the comment would be measured against my numerous denunciations of coal, oil and nuclear subsidies as well.

Yeah, I left my Policies of MoebiusLord hint card at home today. Anyway, removing their subsidies today wouldn't change the fact that their current infrastructure was built upon numerous subsidies. I don't think helping other technologies get a start in replacing them is a bad thing.

Also, removing the subsidies from oil, coal and nuclear is never, ever going to happen so it might make for a nice pipe dream where they all had to compete equally but, realistically, it makes more sense to help wind power along.

So you'll go with the "let's perpetuate bad policy rather than try and change it" approach. Who'd have thought.
#7 Apr 28 2010 at 1:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Hold on to your rainbow unicorn dreams, Moe. They make you beautiful inside.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 Apr 28 2010 at 4:02 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

I am totally in favor of this with the exception of the taxpayer-funded subsidy to the developer. If you can't make it work without making taxpayers foot the bill, better luck next time


Right. Unless you're an energy company. Or a corn farming conglomerate. Or a bank. Or a police force. Or a school. Or you maintain roads. Or you provide health care. Or you do aerospace engineering. Or you work with the court system.

Other than THAT, though, sink or swim on your own in the free market.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#9 Apr 29 2010 at 4:15 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
I really like the look of modern wind turbines, especially en mass. As someone very familiar with composition aesthetics I think not all landscapes would be enhanced by windfarms, while others would be.

I've never been close enough in RL to know how much sound a wind turbine makes, especially an older one. If they are loud its better not to put them where people are going to be disturbed at night.

As a conservationist, I like upping the diversity in renewable energy, I know that windturbines are actually extremely minimal at harming birds, and I'm not concerned about bird harm.

My one concern is bat harm. They don't run into them, there's something about changing air-pressures around the turbines that kill bats, when the turbines are going at higher speeds. bats ar ok around them when the turbines are geared to top out at lower speeds, and therefore produce less power than they could. Therefore, I'd prefer turbines to be built away from bat populated areas. If bats don't fly beyond a certain line offshore, then it could be good to place turbines there.
#10 Apr 29 2010 at 5:40 AM Rating: Good
If this planet is 4.5b years old and there really has been life evolving & dying off over the last 3.5b years then I have no doubt that the smart bats will adapt and evolve to meet the challenges of their environment.
#11 Apr 29 2010 at 6:16 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
If this planet is 4.5b years old and there really has been life evolving & dying off over the last 3.5b years then I have no doubt that the smart bats will adapt and evolve to meet the challenges of their environment.


The Flying Spaghetti Monster actually made bats just as they are, mostly as a source of inspiration for the Bat-Man comics. They don't need to get smarter: they need utility belts.
#12 Apr 29 2010 at 6:21 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
I really like the look of modern wind turbines, especially en mass. As someone very familiar with composition aesthetics I think not all landscapes would be enhanced by windfarms, while others would be.

I've never been close enough in RL to know how much sound a wind turbine makes, especially an older one. If they are loud its better not to put them where people are going to be disturbed at night.
I don't know if it's just because I was in a car, but I've been fairly close to them (wind farms line the highways in northern Texas), and I can't say I noticed any significant noise. They certainly aren't loud enough to bother anyone in a house.

They're really rather beautiful, especially at night on an dark highway where the only lights are the blinking red aircraft warning lights on the turbines. They stretch far into the horizon and seem endless.
#13 Apr 29 2010 at 7:28 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
If this planet is 4.5b years old and there really has been life evolving & dying off over the last 3.5b years then I have no doubt that the smart bats will adapt and evolve to meet the challenges of their environment.


Bats in New England have worse thing to worry about than wind turbines.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#14 Apr 29 2010 at 7:42 AM Rating: Good
Sweetums wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
I really like the look of modern wind turbines, especially en mass. As someone very familiar with composition aesthetics I think not all landscapes would be enhanced by windfarms, while others would be.

I've never been close enough in RL to know how much sound a wind turbine makes, especially an older one. If they are loud its better not to put them where people are going to be disturbed at night.
I don't know if it's just because I was in a car, but I've been fairly close to them (wind farms line the highways in northern Texas), and I can't say I noticed any significant noise. They certainly aren't loud enough to bother anyone in a house.

They're really rather beautiful, especially at night on an dark highway where the only lights are the blinking red aircraft warning lights on the turbines. They stretch far into the horizon and seem endless.

When I was a much younger man I worked for my father as a land surveyor. One of his clients was the organization that erected the wind farm by Altamont on 580 outside of Livermore. We were locating the structures for a GIS map. This was 15 years ago, and I am sure technology has improved since then, but those f'uckers were loud. It wasn't jet airplane taking off loud, but the non-stop high-decibel noise all day, every day for 3 weeks gave me wicked headaches.
#15 Apr 29 2010 at 7:43 AM Rating: Good
Omegavegeta wrote:
Quote:
If this planet is 4.5b years old and there really has been life evolving & dying off over the last 3.5b years then I have no doubt that the smart bats will adapt and evolve to meet the challenges of their environment.


Bats in New England have worse thing to worry about than wind turbines.

First the bees, now the bats? ZOMGweregondie!!1!111
#16 Apr 29 2010 at 12:58 PM Rating: Good
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
I am totally in favor of this with the exception of the taxpayer-funded subsidy to the developer. If you can't make it work without making taxpayers foot the bill, better luck next time. It makes me a little giddy inside that Teddy will fume from the grave over it.


So most energy is produced by burning stuff, which goes into the atmosphere and has some effects on us, as humans. It is really hard to quantify what these are. Of course there is acid rain and asthma. But then there are potentially far larger problems associated with global warming which will take a long time to pass. Adding all this up - or whichever parts of this you believe in - and you get a cost. Now by replacing burning stuff with not burning stuff removes some of this cost. Governments can function as a means to transfer money from the polluters to the nonpolluters to encourage nonpollution. Perhaps there are other methods. In any case, any standard economics text will tell you this is a benefit to the whole to have such a mechanism and that this is an essential part of capitalism. It is like having a legal system. It is a prerequisite.

Although these tax breaks are not that, exactly, they give a similar result.
#17 Apr 29 2010 at 1:07 PM Rating: Good
yossarian wrote:
So most energy is produced by burning stuff, which goes into the atmosphere and has some effects on us, as humans. It is really hard to quantify what these are. Of course there is acid rain and asthma. But then there are potentially far larger problems associated with global warming which will take a long time to pass.

Ah, man-made global warming - The highest grossing work of fiction in the history of mankind.
yossarian wrote:
Adding all this up - or whichever parts of this you believe in - and you get a cost. Now by replacing burning stuff with not burning stuff removes some of this cost.

Except, of course, that we can't replace burny stuff with no burny stuff because the sun sets (and we turn on glowing thingies that use electricity...) and the wind she don't cry mary all the time so you have to keep most of the burny stuff (unless you're cool with a reactor in your backyard. ZOMG3MILEISLAND)
yossarian wrote:
these tax breaks are not that

You should have quit there.
#18 Apr 29 2010 at 2:28 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
If only there wasn't such a great amount of fear surrounding nuclear.


Edited, Apr 29th 2010 3:33pm by Sweetums
#19 Apr 29 2010 at 2:44 PM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
yossarian wrote:
So most energy is produced by burning stuff, which goes into the atmosphere and has some effects on us, as humans. It is really hard to quantify what these are. Of course there is acid rain and asthma. But then there are potentially far larger problems associated with global warming which will take a long time to pass.

Ah, man-made global warming - The highest grossing work of fiction in the history of mankind.


3% of climatologists agree! :D

The more obvious problem with Mirant Canal Generating Plant (the coal power plant that provides most of the electricity to Cape Cod; the rest taken over by Pilgrim Nuclear) is that despite being one of the most efficient coal burning plants in the country (and an effort to reduce emissions made in 2004), every couple of years the Plant still pays for repainting on all buildings nearby because they become filthy from the burned coal. The energy isn't clean, it does have an obvious effect on the people nearby (maybe not as much as the jet fuel the airforce base spilled into the aquifer years ago). Whether or not global warming is another effect, clean energy is a good move forward, and I know you agree. I'm fine with subsidies for it as well, provided that other power plants received similar ones.
#20 Apr 29 2010 at 4:39 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Ah, man-made global warming - The highest grossing work of fiction in the history of mankind.


No way, the Bible clearly holds this title.

Regardless, this **** will never get built, there. Somewhere else nearby, maybe, but not there. This decision is about 1/37th of a completed process leading to a single turbine being placed.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 284 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (284)