I remember this when it was first proposed from our current admistration; it came at a time when there was a challenge from Mr Kennedy as to the mercury in our lakes from energy facilities.  
It appeared to be yet another hit-'em-where-it-hurts punch from the guys that know they don't have to play fair.  
It served to take the steam from the mercury issue and redirect it to removing this eregious plan-that-wasn't-a-plan from Cape Cod.  

Anyone else find it funny that Washington won't allow offshore wind - but they're all for off coast drilling in the gulf of mexico.  

By blaming the failure of the cape wind project on corruption in the GOP controlled congess and the republican governor, maybe this can actually help wind power in the end.

As far as we all can tell RFK jr did not act as a democrat or environmentalist in this case.  He may have to be thrown overboard, but good riddance to a corporatist shill inside the movement.  He could have redeemed himself by supporting offshore wind elsewhere, but it looks like that won't be happening.

The NRDC leaders who endorsed "clean" coal should be in for the same treatment.  It's time to let DC oinksiders (sic) who sell out the movement that there are consequences to treason.

For some reason DC eco-rats seem to feel free to  turn on wind.  As they jummp on the gogreenseeyellow greenwashing, clean coal, and neo-nuker bandwagon.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Add in the rude first part of that title, and there's my reaction to "my" congress.

This is a remarkably murky story.  The parts played by Edward Kennedy and RFK Jr. do not please us at all.  

Mitt Romney, of course, is predictable, and not worth considering in the long run.  He is a dinosaur.

What I would like to know more about, though, is the interest and involvement of Senator Stevens of Alaska.  Why should his claws, at the end of his long skeletal arm, clench about Cape Cod?  How would he like it if we in the North-east rise up in defense of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?  Well, some of us have sort of done just that.

Ted likes oil (a big Alaskan export), therefore he HATES wind, and other nenewables, because they can replace oil.

By throwing their weight in with the GOP Cheney big energy lobbyists against ANY and ALL offshore wind, the Mass enviro group has made a deal with the darkside.

Is that why NRDC is endorsing "clean" coal?  Dirty DC dealings.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

I'd guess that support for clean coal is a pragmatic judgement that coal is coming, no two ways about it, and so every regulation/remediation you can get is worth the effort.

If you believe you can stop coal, go ahead.

If you believe you can't stop coal, press the "clean" effort as far as you can.

"Clean" coal depends upon sequestration of all that CO 2.  And even if sequestration works, you are still left with CO 2 from the fuel burned in the vehicle.

It is nothing but a new formula to continue global climate change on present course.

If that is what you want, I guess you should support it.  

Global climate disaster will only make our waning years a painful sorry experience, it will plunge future generations into disaster after oil war after firestorm.

But who cares about them right?  Burn baby burn!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

I imagine that every one of us in this conversation is using coal to transmit our bits.  That may be at our local power company, but certainly those bits are not going across the country without passing through one coal-power region.

But who cares about them right?  Burn baby burn!

Hi all;

Am a new Grister/poster but am becoming, far more quickly than I'd like to admit, an old crank.

And because of my increasing age, I am moving slowly -- so I am just now commenting on the Wind Farm off of Cape Cod story that was posted a little while back.

While I am absolutely convinced of the need for new energy sources, wind farms are not without cost -- aesthetically, if nothing else.

I live on the coast of CA and look at a horizon polluted with oil platforms. While wind energy may be a better alternative environmentally, it isn't aesthetically. If you've visited the farms south of LA, they are hideous -- enormous stretches of landscape with an army of galactic invaders, arms spinning endlessly.

I have also lived on the Cape, and it is one of the most beautiful places on the Earth. Thanks to another Kennedy, the entire outer shore from the elbow is national seashore -- saving one of the few remaining shores and seascapes in the US as relatively untouched wildlands. You can stand on the beach there and feel infinity -- unencumbered by huge machines.

If solutions are to be truly sustainable, they must be not only environmentally sound but aesthetically sound -- saving ourselves from the disasters of fossil fools is not the answer if we have destroyed the beauty of place.

Thanks and best to all,
Leigh

Leigh Melander, Ph.D. Aka Dr. Smartypants

Heck, well, fossil fuels and fossil fools -- Sigmund would have been pleased, I'm sure.

Best,
Leigh

Leigh Melander, Ph.D. Aka Dr. Smartypants

Do we have the luxury of a future without oil AND without windmills everywhere?

Thanks for the welcome!

I don't know if we've got the luxury of imagining a world without oil and without windmills everywhere. But I think we must try.

While nothing comes for free, it is imperative that we imagine the very best solutions that have the fewest negative impacts -- whether those impacts are on air quality, climate change, economics, or aesthetics. To save a world as we uglify it is not saving it.

Rather than imposing a less-than-subtle technology like windfarms on an area that is close to pristine, why aren't we looking more seriously at energy solutions that utilize other problematic issues that arise from a large population. For example, using waste products to generate energy?

In San Francisco, for example, there's a new program to capture dog poop from city parks and produce gas (I'm assuming methane -- don't remember particulars) -- silly, yes, small scale, yes, but they've got a point. They're taking something that's icky and not just dumping it into land fills, and instead finding a use for it.

Or, looking at ethanol -- new technologies are emerging that will be able to create ethanol from any cellulose base material, i.e., any plant based product. What if we imagined instead small, community based ethanol plants that used yard and agricultural waste, lumber waste, food waste, etc. to power the community?

My point is that there are a variety of solutions that we've not arrived at yet. To cast this argument over windfarms as an "all or nothing" or, to quote King George, as "you're either with us or against us" conversation is naive and destructive.

And we don't necessarily need monolithic solutions. (See what being dependent upon the mono-fossil fuel emperors has brought us!) Instead, a multiplicity of creative ideas that play to the needs and resources of different communities in different ways can provide us solutions that are both relevant and stable.

It seems to me that the gift in this fuel crisis is that it gives us an opportunity to re-invent how we imagine how we power ourselves. So why not imagine big and break old assumptions?

Best,
Leigh

Leigh Melander, Ph.D. Aka Dr. Smartypants

I think they look really cool and do not disturb the landscape. I especially like the slow (almost majestic) spinning of the arms.

I think that you are right about aesthetics, but what about us that actually enjoyed their sight? Clearly, windmills are the cleanest (and one of oldest) sources of energy. Few other sources can compare on that level. I am far from a biomass hater, and I would support most biomass projects (except for corn, it seems like the proponents haven't done their homework or are trying to suggest that their dog ate it, I'm not sure), but wind is a much better, more abundant source of energy.

Wilderness is a fun concept... Doesn't exist though. There isn't one area in the US that hasn't been impacted by people in the most severe of ways. Maybe Alaska is different in the severity, but still impacted. How about that seashore? Hasn't there been a boat after boat that came by and 'harvested' the fish? How about the homes that are already there? And the landscaping? Many forget that landscaping, while aesthetically pleasing, is not really 'wilderness'. It's just the opposite: 'windfarmification' of the landscape, if you will. I am a fan of the 'wilderness', but I also enjoy horticultural sights, and that is why I think that wind farms belong on the Cape.

Side note: Doesn't anyone think how ludicrous our political system is, when both parties are doing EXACTLY the opposite of the other???

Hey:

Well, I guess we need to agree to disagree on the aesthetic value of windmills -- at over 400 feet tall, height of a 40 story skyscraper, they don't disappear into the landscape. (Or, in the case of an offshore installation, seascape.) If you like 'em, I guess it's no big deal. I think they're horrific.

And while I agree with you on your wilderness point (though I was careful not to use the word "wilderness" in my posts -- it's an archetypal concept at this point in this country, I recognize, as we've managed to impact pretty much everywhere fairly thoroughly), I think that's why the areas that haven't been over utilized need to have even more stringent protection.

Don't know if you've been to the Outer Cape, but unlike most of the Eastern coast, there aren't many homes on the beach. You can walk the dunes in the National Seashore for hours, and while you may come across the occasional dune shack, which are remnants of early Coast Guard presence, you are walking in some of the least visually spoiled coastline in the country.

My point is, why choose there to place visual intrusions? Yes, there are fishermen who move in and out on the water, yes, these are not completely pristine wildlands, but you can catch a glimpse here of what an outer beach looked like before the boardwalks, enormo-beach houses, carny rides, and other "improvements" whacked most of the coastline. It is utterly magical.

And 40 story buildings offshore will utterly change that. A far cry from the occasional lobster boat you see chug along the horizon.

(Not to mention the migratory birds that will die in their turning arms...but that's a different rant.)

Best,
Leigh

Leigh Melander, Ph.D. Aka Dr. Smartypants