Hypocrites of Hyannis

[KingM34]

One of the bright spots in energy has been the rapid growth of wind power. Last year, over 2400 megawatts of installed capacity were added to the grid in the United States and this year over 3000 megawatts, over twenty-five percent more than last year. Because it has started from such a small base, wind still provides a minuscule portion of the country's electric production, but the trend is undeniably positive.

One major project that has been on the drawing boards for several years now is the Cape Wind project. With installed capacity of 420 megawatts produced by 130 turbines, the project would be located offshore on Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound. With average winds, the project would produce roughly three quarters of electricity for Cape Cod, Nantucket, and Martha's Vineyard, an area with over two hundred thousand people. Compared to other power options, the wind project would reduce emissions by a million pounds a year.

From the moment the project was announced, however, the project attracted powerful opponents, primarily from the well-heeled of the Cape area. The area has long been a playground for the elites of the Northeast, both Democrat and Republican. These two now found common cause. They claimed that the towers would be a visible eyesore, that fishing would be harmed, that they would be a hazard to shipping.

Read the rest: http://theopinionator.com/energy/hypocrites_hyannis1.html

[Warpy]

1. From the Cape Wind site

Here is the view from Craigville Beach, which is fairly close to the Kennedy compound. It shows the extent of the terrible eyesore Mr. Kennedy and his extremely wealthy neighbors will have to put up with:



The whole project is at http://www.capewind.org/index.php

While I do sympathize with people who want the Cape to look as untroubled by human habitation as it did 500 years ago, the fact is that it is NOT 500 years ago, and we all live here, too. Mr. Kennedy is on exactly the wrong side in this fight.

A pox on him and every other rich asshole who is trying to prevent a project for the greater good of his neighbors.

On edit: consider what this scene would look like without all those ugly beach houses, telephone poles, roads, and other eysores in the foreground but the wind farm in the background to put it all into perspective.

[dailykoff]

2. Hey, thanks for the GOP propaganda!

With the liberal media we hardly ever hear any!

p.s. ain't it swell how them oil outfits want to build a wind farm?

[KingM34]

3. What are you talking about?

And your solution to our energy needs would be...?

Or are you supporting Kennedy's anti-environmental NIMBYism simply because he's a Democrat?

[dailykoff]

11. It's a PR stunt.

How dumb do you think we are?

[MadHound]

4. Sorry, but it isn't GOP propaganda

Kennedy is on the wrong side of this issue. We're desperate to find another form of energy to decrease our need for fossil fuels, and wind energy can easily fill the bill. But being a NIMBY on this issue is exactly the wrong position to take. It isn't a democratic thing, or a republican thing. It is doing what is right for this country.

As far as oil companies putting in the wind turbines, so what. First off, they aren't the major players in wind, and frankly if they want to leverage the money and status into getting this country off of oil, I think it is a fine idea. If you're worried about them becoming monopolistic about this at some point in the future, hell, put a turbine in your own back yard and you will have no worries. Soon as I get the money saved up, that's what I'm doing.

This isn't a political issue pal, this is about our country's survival. We're rapidly going to crash and burn if we continue to fuel our country with fossil fuels. Having somebody rich and powerful objecting to a wind farm due to it "spoiling the view" is wrong, no matter what party they're from.

[sweetheart]

5. Its more than nimby

There is an issue, and its more than energy involved. The house values of every house and
community with "that" seafront will diminish. Why shouldn't the wind farm developer
compensate the people for that? Will the windfarm developer compensate the hotels and
business establishments that lose tourism as tourists head off to beaches where there
is not an industrial junkpile of whirlygigs on the offshore.

With onshore farms, the noise from the farm has caused people to move house, and when
you put up an industrial installation, as "windfarm" is a serious eurphemism, there
must be a way to economically balance the larger picture. If the local communities
could insulate their houses to "save" that much energy, if all of cape cod could get
together and "save" that much energy in its net consumption, could they "not" build
that windfarm and achieve the same effect?

Large scale industrial power generation is not it, it is still just subsidies to
giant energy corporations. The progressive solution is to open up the power markets
to micro-power generation, that each house can sell excess power back to the grid,
that small innovations on a house by house energy-savings/solar generation level are
able to produce a long-term way for us to harness the innovation of all persons, and
not just splash out a few billions to mega-power-inc to blight the horizon.

If you drive up the coast highway north of los angeles towards santa barbara, you'll
see the oil-equivalent off the shore there, and it really does diminish the place for
all people involved, and nobody gets shit from it.

A progressive power solution is first and foremost to de-corporate the power markets
to open them up to micro-generation. Then innovation solves the problem where big
patriarchy has failed, and will forever fail to balance the smaller picture with
its greed and fat subsidies from corporate doshland.

[KingM34]

7. Look at the Picture

That picture doesn't look so bad to me. Sure, you'll be able to see them when you're out in a boat or squint off to sea, but so what?

Yes, it would be nice if electricity just appeared in your wires, but it doesn't. Most of it comes from coal, which has made our fish uneatable from high quantities of mercury and dumps massive quantities of greenhouse gasses into the sky.

Which would you rather have, a coal plant nearby or a wind tower several miles off shore. As Cape Wind supporters are proud to point out, the towers would be further away from any population than any other power generation on the Cape.

[dailykoff]

10. What's wrong with Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, North Dakota

where there are miles and miles of flat windy prairie and why did the Defense Department block windfarms from being built there?

[MadHound]

17. Power tranmission from those states is the problem

While you can transmit power through the grid up to a thousand miles without much degradation, over that and it becomes a losing propisition. Thus, you not only have to set up turbines in the praries, but on the coast too.

As far as the DOD, well personally I think that they're simply doing Bushco's bidding, and you know how much those oily bastards love any solution that threatens their oily profits:eyes:

[Solo_in_MD]

24. They didn't

Congress inserted a requirement for a study is all. Some attribute that to the same well heeled NIMBY crowd.

[sweetheart]

20. Coal is what it is governed to be

New technology in coal burning can put plants near zero emmissions.
The US is not at all interested in this technology, and hence the problems you mention.
The coal plant will still need ot be there when the wind isn't blowing. The problem
of regulating the power producers to be clean and Co2 neutral is not the fault of coal.

You give me a false choice. I would rather have a home that is so well insulated
and designed, that i would be solar-self heating, and with photovoltaics, i could
run electolosys and produce hydrogen from water for transport. We are being sold
"big energy" corporate subsidy by a false choice.

[KingM34]

29. re: false choice

"You give me a false choice."

Yes, I agree. We absolutely need to be investing in energy efficiency, in cleaner technologies for our existing plants, AND massively investing in wind and solar.

(I would add that I prefer nuclear over coal, but I know this is also controversial.)

[MadHound]

14. Well, first off, no, I don't think people should be compensated

C'mon, is it really that bad? I don't think so. And the noise issue is a non-issue. I've toured several wind farms, and with modern wind turbines, and their lower tip speed, the noise level is very, very low, to the point where I doubt it could be heard six miles away, which is where these MA turbines are going.

And I agree with you about micro generation, and all states actually do have provisions to buy back power. But quite frankly most urban residents can't put a turbine in their back yard, and apartment dwellers can't put solar panels out to generate energy. Thus there is indeed a need to have wind farms. And the primary reason they situate them where they do is two fold. To catch as much wind as possible without putting them into the flight paths of birds, a problem that was discovered at Altamont in CA.

And I agree that insulating houses is a good thing, but power still needs to be generated. We're facing Peak Oil in all of its dire problems, and now that somebody is actuallly doing something about it, the rich and powerful are jumping all over them because their view is "spoiled" Sorry, but living within the sight of nuclear cooling towers, but I don't have much sympathy.

[prole_for_peace]

21. there is talk about putting a "farm" near galveston here.

i certainly don't mind. the wind blows like a bitch there all the time. i actually think they look kinda cool. and i don't see the diff in looking at turbines or oil platforms off in the distance. you can see tons of the latter from some of our local beaches.

hell, i'd put some turbines in my backyard if i had room.

[sweetheart]

23. It isn't that bad, i agree

The offshore farms are preferable to onshore, IMO, as onshore does indeed involve noise
and birdstrike, flicker and industrial motion sickness in some persons, not to mention
the dreadfull pilons.

I don't know why they don't do this, but i could paint those windmills so that you could
not even see them. Military camoflauge is for moving objects without consistent backgrounds,
whereas, those turbines are in a consistent background, and with the right usages of pixels
of different greys and blues, you would only be able to see them if you looked directly at
them. Then the eyesore effect would be 100 times diminished and i'm all for it.

[cali]

6. I'm conflicted about this, but

I come down on Kennedy's side. I really don't think Nantucket Sound is the best place for a large wind farm. Just out of curiosity, where do you live? I live in a place where there are proposals for wind farms, and I've found it's not as easy a decision as you seem to feel it is.

[shortcake]

9. These corporations

are getting huge tax breaks. In WV they are akin to Big Coal. All the profits got out of state.

http://www.wvmcre.org/links/articles_letters_to_editor.htm

[Little Star]

12. I love Ted, but

this sounds a little self serving to me. We have a real problem with energy and ocean views for the rich should not enter into his argument imho. The Kennedy family has done so much for the people this self serving argument just rings hollow to me. I understand his point but when weighed against global warming it is a non-starter. Maybe he is phrasing it wrong because it comes off as self serving.

[MadHound]

18. Actually I'm sure that if the company putting up these turbines could

Move them, they would. But I imagine that the two big factors in regards to wind turbine placement, max energy and out of the way of bird flight paths, came into play, and that is why the farm is being built where it is.

As far as myself, I live in Mid Mo, at the tail end of the Great Plains. Fortunately I live in an area where my turbine will get good wind, and I'm out of the flight paths of birds. I've already done the preliminary work on this, and it should be no problem to put up once I buy the turbine.

[dailykoff]

8. Catchy title. Did you borrow it from Drudge?

Or the National Review?

[slackmaster]

13. If you had followed the link in the OP you'd know where it came from

Let's all play "Dogpile on the newbie".

:eyes:

Way to welcome a new contributor to the forums.

[dailykoff]

15. I wasn't going to mention the low post count. (n/t)

[KingM34]

22. ah, it's alright

Thanks, but I expected a little bickering posting somewhere called Democratic Underground. ;)

[slackmaster]

25. You are welcome, and dissent IS tolerated here

As long as you abide by the rules, which are pretty clearly written.

[warrens]

16. The cape project is extremely viable

The wind farm would be far enough offshore to be barely visible to inhabitants. And the opportunity to lower energy costs and reduce reliance on oil during the winter vastly outweighs the negative effects. In Wisconsin, now, DHS is calling wind farms a threat to homeland security because they might disrupt radar. Total BS, but the oil industry does not want these things built and will find any excuse to shut them down.

On the bright side, it appears that there will be a large installation on Lake Michigan. Wind farms over water are far more productive than on land, because there is nearly constant wind over water. The sight of a few fans off on the horizon seems a cheap price to pay.

[sweetheart]

19. wind power

Wind power cannot replace existing generation capacity, as when wind is not
blowing the power must be on, so all it can be is an add-on, and as some
european nations are now discovering, there is a ceiling to this where
it is no longer practical.

If i took the same money it costs to build that windfarm, and used it to
insulate the houses of cape cod, to install solar water and voltaics, and
passive solar heating, i would create jobs across all of cape cod, for regular
working class people, and i would equal that windfarm in spades.

The argument being made here is really one of "big energy" vs. individuals...
and people are starry-eyed and supporting halliburton with subsidies,
when were those same subsidies spent on the communties, it would achieve the
same and create many many more jobs.

[MadHound]

26. Sorry, but you're wrong

A 1991 DOE report found that there is enough harvestable wind energy in North Dakota, Kansas and Texas to fill all of our electrical needs as a nation, including the growth factor, through the year 2030. While it is impractical to put all of our wind turbines in those three states, due to transmission loss, this does go to show you the scope of available power from wind energy.

Given that we have essentially a nation wide electrical grid, one that we can transmit power through up to a thousand miles without serious power loss, wind and solar energy make very practical sense.
Fossil fuels are becoming untentable for a number of different reasons, nuclear has two serious, unsolvable problems that disqualify it. That leaves us with renewables such as wind and solar. But they are indeed wonderful options to have. The US has been described as the Saudi Arabia of wind power. Don't you think it's high time we started tapping this potential.

And while insulating and conservation are indeed things that we should be doing, one still needs electricity actualy generated. What better than wind? Clean, plentiful, renewable. Oh, and about subsidies, well hell, every single energy solution in the country gets subsidies. Why are you holding renewable alternatives to a different standard?

Frankly, given our dire situation vis a vis fossil fuels, I don't give a damn if corporate America jumps in feet first into renewables. Which would you rather have, wind farms owned by Haliburton, or the US engaging in endless wars for oil, with Haliburton benefitting from no bid contracts?

[sweetheart]

28. Of course that

With a good grid, power surplus from windy areas can shift to nonwindy areas and compensate, indeed.

Frankly, if we cut all the fossil fuels subsidies (including the war budgets), and returned
that money to private individuals via tax credits for house insulation, heatpumps, and solar systems,
we'd be far down that path.

But not with this administration pushing oil and the dependence on far away patriarchal control than
local resources we can all feel blowing by.

I'm all for wind power in the right place. Cape cod is a special sacred place, like the scottish
highlands, and i'm against putting turbines on sacred ground, or blighting sacred ground in any way
with more industrial presence.

Some ground has to be sacred, or we'll have nothing left of natural beauty.

Heck, you could build a big dam across long island sound and use tidal power to generate huge
amounts of energy, but that would be ugly... i mean there are a lotta ways to generate power
using natural forces, and no need to shit on our lives whilst doing it.

In my question, why are there not turbines at every single mile of every single interstate
in america. The power grids run along the interstates. There are high winds along them,
they are noisy and ugly so nobody will care a little more ugly. I'm for solving this
without destroying natural beauty that belongs to all of us... and if i visit nantucket
in future to worship my dogeared copy of moby dick, i hope i can look out to sea as mellville
saw it.

[MadHound]

34. Excuse me, but why is Cape Cod anymore "sacred"

Than any other area? It has already been built up by the tourist trade and summer homes, it is in no way pristine. Sorry, but this sounds like just more NIMBYism to me:shrug:

The placement of wind turbines is determined by two things, the first is whether or not there is a plentiful supply of wind energy. The second is whether or not the site is in the flight path of local and migratory birds. Apparently Cape Cod fulfills both these needs, having plentiful wind and not being in a major flight path. Moving it somewhere else could very well result in less power and more dead birds.

If we make an allowance for Cape Cod due to its being "sacred ground" or just plain spoiling the view as Kennedy claims, then we're going to set a precedent that all future NIMBY folks will follow. Soon nobody will be able to put up a turbine, and then instead of the view being spoiled by wind turbines, it will be spoiled by smog:shrug:

And let me ask this, does Cape Cod have any cell phone towers put up on it? I'm willing to bet that it has more than one. If so, why aren't people complaining about those spoiling the view, or how they spoil "sacred ground":shrug:

Face it, we have all got to make some sort of sacrifice in order to kick the fossil fuel habit we've got. It isn't fair that the poor and middle class would be the only ones to make this sacrifice. Hell, I've already got my "sacred ground" spoiled by the view of nuclear cooling towers, and I'll soon be putting up a wind turbine up in my back forty. I think that it's only fair that the rich have to make some sacrifice also.

[KingM34]

36. Not to mention...

As a New Englander who used to live about an hour from the Cape, I love the place, but it's pretty developed already. There are also power plants on the Cape that are far more visible than this project is. Cape Wind would provide a huge chunk of the electrical needs of Cape Cod and it is a very green technology.

[sweetheart]

39. Fine, you know better than I

It looks like a lovely beach that i thought was a public beach
and parkland in parts.

I could take you to parts of arizona, new mexico and utah, that
i know better, and show you energy development that has been
nothing but a blight, from lake powell, to a hideous powerstation
near page arizona, to massive pilons crossing otherwise pristine
deserts. If nature has lasted this long undeveloped, then maybe
it can be left alone and we can select brownfield sites. You're
saying cape cod is a brownfield site, then ok.

[KingM34]

40. it's hardly browfield

Cape Cod is not a brownfield site, not at all. Building these turbines well offshore is also not anything like damming Glenn Canyon.

These are not always easy choices we make but even environmental groups are in favor of Cape Wind as movement toward sustainable, non-polluting energy.

[KingM34]

30. I couldn't agree more. n/t

.

[sandnsea]

31. We should do both

Any sort of energy that doesn't pollute should be supported. It isn't a competition. Homes and buildings can actually be close to self-sufficient through solar and conservation strategies. The wind can be a supplement and power source for engines and that sort of thing. We are really screwing up by focusing on one over the other because that it's going to take several power sources to keep up with developing nations.

[ourbluenation]

27. just did a little searchypoo of your posts...I call TROLL

You wanna drill in anwr, you've promoted the farce called "clean coal technology" and you're a fiscal conservative - all your words...don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.

[KingM34]

32. *raspberry*

Yes, I'm a fiscal conservative if by fiscal conservative you mean we should balance the budget like Clinton did and not like the budget busting Reagan and Bush.

I don't want to drill in ANWR, I want to save ANWR for a real emergency and if we *have* to drill ANWR I want to put environmental protection in place. As for clean coal, I actually prefer nuclear. Bet that really sets you afire.

FYI, I donated to the Kerry campaign but preferred Dean, maybe because I live in Vermont and he was a pretty good governor. It's called the Democratic Party and it's pretty big and diverse. Some of us have different opinions.

Deal with it, my friend.

[Armstead]

33. There may be a point in there but.....

Welcome to DU. Hope you contribute to the discussions 9arguments here.)

But I'd suggest you resist the temptation to use headlines like "Hypocrites of Hyannis."

There are points pro and con on the windmill farm. Maybe there's a bit of NIMBYism mixed in there.

But this case has been used as by the right as anotehr excuse to discredit Ted Kennedy for a while. Ted Kennedy is anything BUT a hypocrite.

Rather than sit on their wealthy butts, or pursuing selfish interests for their class as Republicans, he and the otehr Kennedys have chosen to dedicate their lives to advancing the common good as active liberals and progressives.

That's hardly hypocritical.

[KingM34]

35. fair enough

My beef is that he is quite devoted to environmental causes until the tough choices come knocking on his door and then it seems as though he is behaving like any other spoiled land owner. He's certainly not alone in this, of course.

[never cry wolf]

37. Kennedy also represents the citizens of Mass.

Cape Cod and Hyannis are in Barnstable county which in 2004 generated $745 mil in tourism dollars resulting in 9,300 jobs. http://www.massvacation.com/html/industry_news/research/Email%20-%20MA%202004%20Report.pdf

How much revenue and how many jobs will be lost by locating this wind farm in that location as opposed to one less scenic?

Here's RFK, Jr's. take:

An Ill Wind Off Cape Cod

*
E-Mail This
* Printer-Friendly
* Save Article

Article Tools Sponsored By
By ROBERT F. KENNEDY Jr.
Published: December 16, 2005

AS an environmentalist, I support wind power, including wind power on the high seas. I am also involved in siting wind farms in appropriate landscapes, of which there are many. But I do believe that some places should be off limits to any sort of industrial development. I wouldn't build a wind farm in Yosemite National Park. Nor would I build one on Nantucket Sound, which is exactly what the company Energy Management is trying to do with its Cape Wind project.

Environmental groups have been enticed by Cape Wind, but they should be wary of lending support to energy companies that are trying to privatize the commons - in this case 24 square miles of a heavily used waterway. And because offshore wind costs twice as much as gas-fired electricity and significantly more than onshore wind, the project is financially feasible only because the federal and state governments have promised $241 million in subsidies.

Cape Wind's proposal involves construction of 130 giant turbines whose windmill arms will reach 417 feet above the water and be visible for up to 26 miles. These turbines are less than six miles from shore and would be seen from Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. Hundreds of flashing lights to warn airplanes away from the turbines will steal the stars and nighttime views. The noise of the turbines will be audible onshore. A transformer substation rising 100 feet above the sound would house giant helicopter pads and 40,000 gallons of potentially hazardous oil.

snip--------

Nantucket Sound is among the most densely traveled boating corridors in the Atlantic. The turbines will be perilously close to the main navigation channels for cargo ships, ferries and fishing boats. The risk of collisions with the towers would increase during the fogs and storms for which the area is famous. That is why the Steamship Authority and Hy-Line Cruises, which transport millions of passengers to and from the cape and islands every year, oppose the project. Thousands of small businesses, including marina owners, hotels, motels, whale watching tours and charter fishing operations will also be hurt. The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston estimates a loss of up to 2,533 jobs because of the loss of tourism - and over a billion dollars to the local economy.

Nantucket Sound is a critical fishing ground for the commercial fishing families of Martha's Vineyard and Cape Cod. Hundreds of fishermen work Horseshoe Shoal, where the Cape Wind project would be built, and make half their annual income from the catch. The risks that their gear will become fouled in the spider web of cables between the 130 towers will largely preclude fishing in the area, destroying family-owned businesses that enrich the palate, economy and culture of Cape Cod.

more----> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/opinion/16kennedy.html?ex=1292389200&en=58e5dd67e381fd58&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

[KingM34]

41. Solid Majorities in both Mass and the Cape Support the Project

As do local environmental groups. So he's not really representing local opinion. One person who does share his view is Republican Governor Mitt Romney, future presidential candidate.

[ComerPerro]

38. Yeah! I hate Democrats! Lets lynch them!

[northzax]

42. I oppose this project as well

but not for the same reason. I oppose the privatization of the commons in this manner (I learned to sail on those waters, now they will be all but closed) Second, there is no way to tell the number of seabirds that will be killed (you know why off-shore farms kill fewer birds? shhh, but it's because the carcasses vanish in the water!) Lastly, I oppose any additional hazards to navigation in such a heavily trafficked area, it's just asking for trouble.