Offshore wind power park announced for Delaware (CNN)

[eppur_se_muova]

From Paul Courson
CNN

(CNN) -- A contract to build what is being called the nation's first offshore field of wind turbines was announced Monday between a Delaware utility company and a firm that is to build the generators off the Atlantic coast.

Officials from Delmarva Power and Bluewater Wind announced details of the contract at a news conference Monday in Newark, Delaware.

Bluewater spokesman Jim Lanard said the power company will get about 16 percent of its electricity from a field of 150 wind turbines, anchored in the seafloor about a dozen miles off Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.

The contract with Delmarva would use less than half the projected generating capacity the energy park is expected to have when completed. The rest would be sold to other customers.

The project's cost is estimated at $1.6 billion, according to a project official with Bluewater.
***
more: http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/06/23/wind.turbines/index.html

Although I view this as good news, the term "energy park" just creeps me out. This is not a "park", it is a production facility/field.

[polichick]

1. So much better than offshore drilling!

[Eurobabe]

2. well, no greasy beaches!

I agree, they are not very aesthetically appealing, but its better than offshore drilling.

[kristopher]

4. Most people disagree with that.

Surveys have shown most people (I forget the exact number but it is about 80%) see them as aesthetically pleasing. Speculation is that it is related to the perception of the positive health benefits (healthy=pretty).

That would go along with the real estate survey data that shows properties with a view of wind turbines actually do better at sale than comparable properties without a view.

[Eurobabe]

6. that is my opinion, I think they are hideous

just me. But I agree they may be viewed more favorably than a drilling platform.

[kristopher]

7. No, it isn't just "viewed more favorably"

It is actively appreciated for it aesthetic qualities. Big difference.

[Eurobabe]

9. Oh whatever.

:eyes:

[Finishline42]

10. I think back to all those paintings by Dutch painters and how it seemed

that quite a few of their paintings had windmills in them.

What's funny is how windfarm detractors like to use a picture of one of the original windfarms in California, with all those small windmills turning like fans. Pictures from a modern windfarm seldom show more than a couple of windmills at a time.

[kristopher]

12. Do you know what a fuss was made about the Eiffel Tower when it was built? nt

[phantom power]

3. Good news. I was wondering if they'd ever go forward with this project.

[kristopher]

5. It's not a "park"?

That's a strange criticism. Do you also get creeped out by "industrial park" and "parking lot".

Also, the main users of that area are recreational boaters and fishermen who are solidly in favor of the wind park because of the huge increase in marine wildlife the habitat provided will bring.

[eppur_se_muova]

8. Industrial park, yes. Parking lot is from a different word, so no.

"Parkway" was invented by Robert Moses, who wanted to make driving on his highways sound like a pleasant outing for genteel folk. "Industrial park" doesn't bring to mind rusting drums of toxic waste, so it serves its purpose -- to obscure. "Energy park" will soon be applied to fields of oil pumps, if it isn't already. It's all PR, in the worst sense.

[kristopher]

11. I don't think it's "just PR".

There are a lot of people who actually LIKE the way they look. Why is it they should accept your minority, negative characterization as the "legitimate" one? From my perspective it appears that you are at least as intent on manipulation of opinion through the use of labels as those you accuse. In fact, considering the general view of the aesthetics and the benign impact on nature that wind offers us, I'd say that your 'view' perspective is drawing on a pretty narrow set of values.

[NNadir]

13. This reminds me of the stupid character in Ayn Rand's stupid book about libertarianism

who declared that billboards are beautiful.

It was in the unreadable tripe tract called "Atlas Shrugged" where the profound question was "Who is as boring as John Galt?"

The nice thing about these "parks" of course, is that they will reduce the amount of phosphorus returning from the oceans to the land by grinding up sea gulls before they can shit all over our parkland.

[eppur_se_muova]

14. Wow, you seem to be jumping from one argument to another ...

I say I don't like the term energy park, and you suggest some people like the way windmills look ... quite a few leaps of logic to connect those two.

If you'll DUgle E/E, you'll find some posts of mine where I've pointed out the absurdity of regarding old Dutch windmills as 'charming' while modern ones are 'unsightly', so if you think I'm objecting to windmills (again, DUgle E/E for my posts on wind energy), that came from YOUR interpretation of what I wrote, not from the actual content of my post.

What I am objecting to (which should be clear to a CAREFUL reader) is the insidious creep of definitions, and re-definitions, a phenomenon which is all too familiar in politics and practised as well by corporations wishing to manipulate public opinion. "Wind farm" seems like a reasonably fitting term because there is some analogy between harvesting a crop from land set aside for that purpose and harvesting energy in a like fashion. The term "park" commonly implies an area set aside for preservation, recreation, or simply beauty. This is not some declaration on my part as to what the term "legitimately" means, it is common usage, which is what always defines language; even dictionaries follow common usage, not the other way around. Nor did I suggest that I have cornered the market on legitimate definitions, or that everyone should accept my judgement. I simply stated my opinion ("creeps me out", hardly an assault on anyone's happines), and you object to my handing out orders. It will be hard to take your views seriously if you are just going to raise loud objections based on sloppy misreadings. It would be advisable to desist from this type of behavior, before you become recognized as the Emily Litella of E/E.

[bananas]

16. A quick check of google groups finds the term used in 1992

and it's probably been used long before that.

Newsgroups: sci.energy
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:07:14 GMT

<snip>

>tens of thousands of warheads. So how about if we turn our
>underground test area into an energy park of burner reactors
>and run superconducting cables to the nearest population
>centers?

<snip>

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/browse_thread/thread/a6138ff0577f1ee4/6e5b111c25b0db4e?lnk=gst&q=+%22energy+park%22#6e5b111c25b0db4e

[kristopher]

17. No jumping required, you are pretty explicit

"Parkway" was invented by Robert Moses, who wanted to make driving on his highways sound like a pleasant outing for genteel folk. "Industrial park" doesn't bring to mind rusting drums of toxic waste, so it serves its purpose -- to obscure. "Energy park" will soon be applied to fields of oil pumps, if it isn't already. It's all PR, in the worst sense."

You are clearly making an accusation that the use of the term wind park is illegitimate and that the use of the term is tantamount to to an ethical lapse "It's all PR in the worst sense."

I'm pointing out that your words of judgment are not shared by the majority of people and that your aura if self righteousness regarding the use of "park" is arrogant and insulting. It presupposes that anyone who likes the look is somehow living in an ignorant delusion created by slick marketing. Denying that was your intent with a lot of tap dancing around what might or might not be 'common usage" doesn't erase your earlier words nor does it alter their obvious meaning.

[Nihil]

18. His earlier words were perfectly clear if you don't have an agenda.

> doesn't erase your earlier words nor does it alter their obvious meaning.

He didn't attempt to "erase" his earlier words, just tried to be polite by
explaining them to someone who hadn't understood their meaning and who went
straight from "misunderstanding" to "arrogant accusation" without attempting
to see the original poster's comments.

> I'm pointing out that your words of judgment are not shared by the
> majority of people ...

So claims Kristopher, the self-appointed spokesman of "the majority of people".

> ... and that your aura if self righteousness regarding the use of "park"
> is arrogant and insulting.

That's rich considering your own aura of self-righteousness, your arrogance
and your insults.

If you were to calm down and read the post in terms of the English language
(rather than pre-conceived bias about the poster's possible intentions) then
you would see that he is *not* against wind turbines, does *not* view them
as polluting/toxic/negative and simply doesn't want the fatuous concept of
an "energy park" to become more widespread as it will (as already shown)
become abused as a greenwash term. The term "wind farm" is far more widely
used, understood by everyone who is even vaguely familiar with English
and has no need to be superseded.

[kristopher]

19. I'm sorry, but you are the one misreading

You wrote:
That's rich considering your own aura of self-righteousness, your arrogance
and your insults.

If you were to calm down and read the post in terms of the English language
(rather than pre-conceived bias about the poster's possible intentions) then
you would see that he is *not* against wind turbines, does *not* view them
as polluting/toxic/negative and simply doesn't want the fatuous concept of
an "energy park" to become more widespread as it will (as already shown)
become abused as a greenwash term. The term "wind farm" is far more widely
used, understood by everyone who is even vaguely familiar with English
and has no need to be superseded.

WTF died and gave you the authority to decide what needs exist or do not exist within the English language. Talk about arrogant.

I think I was extremely clear in my statements; and nowhere is there an inaccurate characterization of the other poster's view of wind parks. Rather, I focued my remarks on what is supported by the direct evidence of the statements made - the other poster is attacking the use of the term wind park through the use of specious accusations of malicious intent by those who use it. He is clearly of a mind that the terminology associated with the production of energy in the ocean by wind should focus on a wind facility's relationship to the negative images generally associated with other types of energy production. I gave support for my belief that the way wind energy extraction actually integrates into the place-identity of the users of the space affected is actually quite different; it is perceived as much more than just an energy extraction facility, it is also a positive symbol that people seem to associate with words like art, majesty, awe inspiring, clean, safe etc. Considering that my remarks about the public's take on the visual aspect is based on consistent survey data I'm not setting myself up as spokesman, I'm simply stating the known facts about public preferences. If you think I'm wrong, produce your arguement and/or evidence to support that contention; don't just engage in baseless ad hominem.

His (and your) posts attempt to deny those people (and I'm one of them) their voice in the discussion by seeking to limit their choice of terminologies to those YOU deem appropriate. I don't accept that.

You childish diatribe reeks of ignorance related to the the way languages languages are used, the nature of the public debate on wind energy, and a total failure to actually attempt to understand the words I actually wrote. Instead, your remarks seem more a product of a pre-existing desire to make a personal attack against me.



My earlier posts:
1) It's not a "park"?

That's a strange criticism. Do you also get creeped out by "industrial park" and "parking lot".

Also, the main users of that area are recreational boaters and fishermen who are solidly in favor of the wind park because of the huge increase in marine wildlife the habitat provided will bring.

2) I don't think it's "just PR".

There are a lot of people who actually LIKE the way they look. Why is it they should accept your minority, negative characterization as the "legitimate" one? From my perspective it appears that you are at least as intent on manipulation of opinion through the use of labels as those you accuse. In fact, considering the general view of the aesthetics and the benign impact on nature that wind offers us, I'd say that your 'view' perspective is drawing on a pretty narrow set of values.

3) You are clearly making an accusation that the use of the term wind park is illegitimate and that the use of the term is tantamount to to an ethical lapse "It's all PR in the worst sense."

I'm pointing out that your words of judgment are not shared by the majority of people and that your aura if self righteousness regarding the use of "park" is arrogant and insulting. It presupposes that anyone who likes the look is somehow living in an ignorant delusion created by slick marketing. Denying that was your intent with a lot of tap dancing around what might or might not be 'common usage" doesn't erase your earlier words nor does it alter their obvious meaning.

[eppur_se_muova]

20. And who appointed YOU to "speak for the majority of the people?"

Isn't this EXACTLY the thing you accused me of? If you won an election to hold this title, please provide details. Your accusations of judgementalism, arrogance and self-righteousness sound more than a little like projection -- in fact they would constitute an instructive textbook example of the same. If you find it "insulting" that someone expresses a preference for one term over another, you're headed for death by apoplexy before you get much older. Lots of people are going to have preferences that won't agree with yours.

I won't attempt to discuss this further; I VERY much prefer that you remain as overwrought over this fantasized slight as your metabolism allows.

park (pärk)
n.
1. An area of land set aside for public use, as:
a. A piece of land with few or no buildings within or adjoining a town, maintained for recreational and ornamental purposes.
b. A landscaped city square.
c. A large tract of rural land kept in its natural state and usually reserved for the enjoyment and recreation of visitors.
2. A broad, fairly level valley between mountain ranges: the high parks of the Rocky Mountains.
3. A tract of land attached to a country house, especially when including extensive gardens, woods, pastures, or a game preserve.
4. Sports A stadium or an enclosed playing field: a baseball park.
5.
a. An area where military vehicles or artillery are stored and serviced.
b. The materiel kept in such an area.
6. An area in or near a town designed and usually zoned for a certain purpose: a commercial park.
7. A position in an automatic transmission that disengages the gears and sets the brake so the vehicle cannot move: put the car in park and turned off the engine.

If definitions one and six were reversed, you might have a point.

[kristopher]

21. Another person who only argues with the use of straw men...

I don't claim to speak for anyone but myself. However the objective, measured public opinion is as I state - they LIKE wind parks. They think they are ATTRACTIVE. And to the fishermen and recreational boaters I referenced definitian 1a is perfectly applicable.

And finally, I don't give a flying eff what YOU call an offshore wind park; I frequently use a variety of terms myself. Everything from offshore industrial wind energy extraction facility to wind farm to wind park to beautiful has been use by me at one time or another. What I jumped on you about was your intent to deny others the right to express their views in their word choice.

It isn't complicated and at no time did I tell you what words you could or should use.

[ladjf]

15. News of the facility being built is a very good thing. I don't think

we should worry too much about what it is called.