very disappointed in Teddy K ...

Kennedy has a lengthy, distinguished career fighting for the little guy in the US Senate ... I've voted for him each and every time I could ...

but this latest thing just is very unfortunate ... does anyone disagree? with global warming threatening life on the planet, concern for boating safety seems a wee bit thin ...

And Bush is trying to do away with so much of what is left.

I think I'd vote this down too. And further, I would ask why it needed to be there. :shrug: I'm sure those Northeasters can be caught anywhere up and down the coast. Why spoil?

Don't people buy pinwheels and things for their back yards, too?

From what it says they will be visible - but it sounds like they are far in the distance. I thought another issue was that it would impact the fisherman in the area.

I saw a wind turbins somewhere on the coast of Cornwall when we were driving down to see Tintagel. They were on land in an area that was very windy. They were not unsightly - not beautiful, but gorgeous compared to oil refineries.

the Mass coastline is a perfect place to pioneer these windfarms ...

if we don't start making reasonable trade-offs, we're going to be doomed to a very dark, cold, polluted future ... the last thing we need are a bunch of NIMBY's and Romneys to block our efforts ...

as for the fishing industry, certainly every possible effort should be made to minimize the impact ... the reality is that many species have become unsafe to eat due to mercury contamination ... we have to stop polluting our air and our water if we want to protect our food supply and the air we breathe ...

because it's all walls, fences, and mansions. There are absolutely gorgeous places left there like Washburn Island, donated to the state as a nature preserve by the family that named it. The turbines would be visible from only one end of that island, if at all.

I think they're probably more concerned with the hazard to yachting than they are with the view, which won't be visible for much of the year due to persistent fog. Peasants like me and thee rarely get to see that view because the wealthy who line their enormous and ornate "cottages" up along the shore also own the beach and can restrict access to it.

I say to hell with 'em. Let them move over and make room for the rest of us for once and put up with those turbines off shore.

Let him kill the windfarm when gas prices pass $4.00 a gallon in 2008.

so that we get stuck with some other asshole instead of Romney?

nope, that doesn't work for me ...

They don't mind fucking up our backyard--oil wells, oil spills, atomic waste, clear cutting forests, I could go on and on.:puke: :puke:

The controversy extended to fishermen, who claimed that their fishing areas would be blocked, also being against this. I honestly don't remember the details, but I do recall thinking at the end of it that it was a bad idea, overall. I would google this issue to find out more before going at Kennedy over it.

There are many, many environmental drawbacks. The situation offshore is totally different than those wind farms out in the desert areas.

this is likely to be a big issue in the Governor's race ... at a time where the alternative energy is deperately trying to gain the resources and support needed to compete with the entrenched OIL and GAS powers, this is a real knife in the back ...

"quit building those windmills; you're scaring the fish" ?????

It sounds like a simple idea but it isn't. If it puts people out of work, like fishermen, then you have problems, especially if you are a politician (it wasn't about scaring fish, I remember these things would go for miles, and no fishing could be done around them). As I said, I don't remember all the details.

innovation or adoption of new technologies if they aren't willing to allow a few harmless wind mills in their communities? I don't ever want to hear Ted Kennedy talk about energy reform again. He has lost me on that one.

this is who you should be dissappointed in

take out the spaces

very powerful ... i'm disappointed in all who keep voting more funds for this war ... it's time for
Democrats to stop doing that ... hopefully Kerry's latest plan will include broad support to cut-off funding for bush's war ...

of course, that has nothing to do with this thread ... well, at least not in the usual sense ...

<snip>
Moreover, the proposed site is located near a major migration route for dozens of bird species. Thus the developers of the wind project are facing resistance not only from those who don't want to sully their costly ocean views, but also from local environmental activists who are concerned that migrating birds will be killed and local sea life disturbed by the construction of the wind farm, which would entail driving 170 poles, each 20 feet in diameter, 80 feet into the seabed. Sailors and fishers also worry that it will be difficult to navigate their boats and drag-nets among the maze of 170 pylons spaced a half-mile apart.

<snip>

Nothing illustrates the complexity of this conundrum better than the way it has divided the activist community. On the anti-wind-farm side, you have the Humane Society, Massachusetts Audubon Society, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, and the International Wildlife Coalition; on the pro-side, Greenpeace, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Conservation Law Foundation.

<snip>

At the center of the whole mess is a regulatory vacuum. This is, after all, the first time a wind farm of such a scale and location has been proposed, so there's no existing framework for the environmental review of offshore wind projects. The U.S. Interior Department has established environmental review processes for offshore oil and natural gas rigs, which typically take about 10 years to get permitted, but the questions that surround offshore wind farms are completely different.

Cape Wind Associates argues that because a wind farm does not involve minerals extraction, it should not be compared to an offshore oil rig or be subject to the same kind of exhaustive permitting process. But company leaders do consider themselves environmentalists -- as bird-, sea mammal-, and view-friendly as the next guy -- and they are committing to both a federal-level review as well as the most rigorous state-level review process required for all major developments, including industrial power plants. Once these review processes are complete (in about a year), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will weigh the results against other concerns, such as fisheries impacts and navigation hazards, in deciding whether to issue the permit that will greenlight the project. If the permit is granted, nothing would prevent Cape Cod Wind Associates from moving ahead with the project from a regulatory standpoint, but it could still be stalled by bad press or lawsuits. The company has commissioned Geo-Marine, Inc., to conduct a two-year radar study tracking the migration patterns of all the birds that fly near and over the site. That study is already halfway complete. The opposition, however, feels the review process should be longer, claims the company is cutting corners, and objects to the fact that the project is being overseen by the Army Corps, which has a sketchy environmental track record.

http://www.grist.org/news/powers/2002/12/19/griscom-windmill/

And a reasonable solutions seems possible.

I can't defend the blue blooded selfishness that prevents common sense conservation.
I'll not accept unfair critisizm from the right either until I see wind generators off Kennebunkport...... Or never which ever comes first.

nantucket in particular, so I have some strong opinions on this. i am an avid enviro, very pro wind, and would like to see this program ended.

first, the nantucket sound, where the generators are meant to be placed, is one of the most heavily trafficked waterways in the country -- pleasure boats, fishing vessels and, yes, birds. Nantucket sound is also one of the foggiest places in the north east. Having several hundred hazards on the water in that area would effectively end its utility as a protected waterway. also, dont buy the POV about the generators not being visible from the shore. they have already placed one tower at the most advantageous spot in the whole sound (it is only 15 miles at its widest) and it is an eye sore. for this project, the sensible alternative has always been to move it to the shoals to the south of the island -- in the atlantic. that's a replicable alternative, because there is plenty of blue water left for these type of inititiaves. but it does pose technological challenges.

second, wind power generation is most economically feasible when its serves as an additional income stream to the owners of the underlying property. Think cell phone towers. In Iowa for instance, I know of several farmers who would lease their land to wind power companies but continue to farm the land below. Many I have talked to say that they make more money on power generation then on crops. this dual use approach generates the most value IMHO -- it lowers resistance to wind, it maximizes property usage and helps protect the small farmer.

in total, i feel this debate for the sound power project is unfortunate as it serves as a wedge isue to enviro's, as evidenced by INCAPSULATED excellent post.

Any sacrifice toward that end is a no-brainer IMO.

I think you have to be smart about the projects you choose.

but doing nothing isn't an option, and unfortunately much of the discussion based on seeking to be smart often leads to inaction. It's Catch-22 IMO.

the birds in the areas where they have been implemented? Until safeguards for the killing of them are in place, why should any environmentalist support such a plan? Google other states and nations who've run into this disaster and see why it may not be such a good idea.

"Audubon Society Backs Controversial Wind Farm" See complete story here ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12066651/ ).

~snip~

"Mass Audubon said it wants the government and Cape Wind to study the flight paths of birds for one more spring and summer season at night to be certain the blades would not kill too many birds. Mass Audubon gave no figure on how many bird deaths would be acceptable. They said if new information indicates the deaths would be "ecologically significant," they would reconsider their support.

Mass Audubon officials said support for the farm was a difficult decision because it would probably cause some bird deaths. They said that cost was outweighed by the need for renewable energy sources."




"Some bird deaths" is an understatement. Have you ever looked at all the carcasses underneath those things? Until reasonable safety guards are invented and implemented, I would never advocate planting those bird-killers in anyone's backyard, regardless of the energy they provide!

we should remove all radio and cellular towers, never build any structure over one story, etc. It's about the cost/benefit ratio, IMO.

No wind turbines in Nantucket Sound. I don't live there, but it is a place that should be preserved. I do live in a place where wind power is becoming an increasing issue. Should the environmental board grant the licenses I will be very near 4 large turbines on top of a mountain, that I've frequented for recreational purposes. I ski up it nearly every winter. I don't relish these turbines being built, but I think they should be. I can't very well go downhill skiing on a nearby mountain with all its chairlifts and carved up runs and also object to wind turbines. So I'm not against wind energy, but I do think we have to be very careful about where we put up turbines. Nantucket Sound is not the right environment.