Recent Comment
Share
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has approved the Cape Wind offshore wind farm project! In additon to giving the go-ahead, Salazar outlined a few tweaks to incorporate the concerns of those who have opposed the project.
- The project will be reduced in scope from the original 170 turbines planned to 130.
- Additonal marine surveys will be required before construction to make sure the archaeological heritage of the site can be preserved.
- Other measures will need be incorporated to minimize the "visual impact" of the wind farm.
It's hard to believe it's been nine years since the first announcement of the project in the Nantucket Sound. Some residents of the surrounding area, including Wampanoag indian tribes and the late Sen. Kennedy, have opposed the project because they believe it would obstruct their views (and disrupt spriritual rituals and ancient burial sites of the indians).
But environmentalists around the country and five East Coast governors all rallied for its approval, and in the end, the U.S. is finally getting its first offshore wind farm. The wind farm will have a capacity of 420 MW -- enough to meet 75 percent of Cape Cod and the Islands' electricity needs.
The U.S. leads the world in wind energy capacity, but we've lagged behind other countries, especially in Europe, that have forged ahead with offshore wind.
Why is this a big deal? Because offshore wind is stronger, more consistent and near coastal population centers, meaning more power generation, less gaps in electricity and no need for huge transmission networks (like those needed to distribute wind energy generated in the middle of the country).
via Boston Globe
Hits: 13763
Comments (12)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Kayla, April 28, 2010
I live on the Cape and I have signed every petition possible to get this to pass. I'm so happy it finally went through! I think it's a huge step towards a greener world and happy my home could host it. 
-
- +12
-
-
written by joe, April 29, 2010
This is a very progressive step in the right direction. Check out this map of the project and other wind farm locations in the USA, each farm has a link to information (date created, megawatts generated, developer/operator, etc): http://www.mapserving.com/gmap/g1/?mid=5287
-
- +3
-
-
written by Robert Halvarsson, April 30, 2010
I really think you nailed it there Jeff. Coal ain't pretty. Fossil ain't pretty. Wind might be one of the best things we've got.
-
- +3
-
-
written by Fred, May 01, 2010
There are two very much better alternatives to wind power. Wind is hopeless since it destroys the scenery and landscape utility and pathetically cannot provide baseload power.
1. Hot rock geothermal. Before you say "we don't have any volcanoes here", let me tell you that hot rock geothermal does not require volcanic activity. It uses the natural heat produced by granite bodies. There is enough granite to provide us with a thousands years of baseload power.
2. Nuclear.
Hope that helps
1. Hot rock geothermal. Before you say "we don't have any volcanoes here", let me tell you that hot rock geothermal does not require volcanic activity. It uses the natural heat produced by granite bodies. There is enough granite to provide us with a thousands years of baseload power.
2. Nuclear.
Hope that helps
-
- -5
-
-
written by Tiffany, May 01, 2010
I think it's a good idea. If 75% of the community is powered from wind instead of fossil fuel, it's a step in the right direction. There are other alternatives, but how well suited are they for the cape?
I've lived in coastal areas and the amount of consistent wind definitely makes wind turbines a worthwhile venture for those areas. True, there may be some who don't appreciate those colossal machines in their view but it's what the turbines produce which I think outweighs the aesthetic debate.
Another thing I like about the idea is that the turbines won't spill millions of gallons of oil into the sea. This power source is a lot cleaner than what the majority of us currently rely on.
I've lived in coastal areas and the amount of consistent wind definitely makes wind turbines a worthwhile venture for those areas. True, there may be some who don't appreciate those colossal machines in their view but it's what the turbines produce which I think outweighs the aesthetic debate.
Another thing I like about the idea is that the turbines won't spill millions of gallons of oil into the sea. This power source is a lot cleaner than what the majority of us currently rely on.
-
- +2
-
-
written by Craig Shields, May 02, 2010
Wind is very useful, where it blows on a consistent basis and can be safely harvested without presenting an undue danger to wildlife. As Joe has observed above, the technology has gained a lot of ground since the 1970's.
Although personally I'm a fan of soler thermal - particularly the variety that uses molten salt as an energy storage and exchange medium - there are a great many great minds who think we need a mix of solutions depending on the local availability of renewable alternatives.
Most solutions have downsides. With wind it's the risk to birds and bats, the not-insignificant cost of construction and maintenance, and the variability of the energy source. The aesthetic challenge windfarms might present is in my opinion debatable, as I think the wind farms in California are really rather pretty to look at - and aside from their ecolo-economic contribution they serve as a nice sort of highly visible billboard that says "Look, there's hope; we humans are trying to make a difference". However, as I've heard from people familiar with geothermal, the utilization of that source is in its infancy - about where oil drilling was in the 1930's - and the technology to locate and predict the strength and stability of the resource is not well developed.
I have serious doubts about the ability of nuclear to make a valuable contribution in the light of the fact that it cannot survive as an industry without massive government subsidies, it's also exhorbitantly expensive to insure. Nuclear projects are universally plagued by enormous cost overruns for construction to acheive only a relatively short reactor life span, and the problem of safely and permenantly storing the deadly waste has never been adequately addresed.
The most efficient and safest nuclear reactor available to us is 93 million miles away and has another good 5 billion years on it - we just need to plug in.
Although personally I'm a fan of soler thermal - particularly the variety that uses molten salt as an energy storage and exchange medium - there are a great many great minds who think we need a mix of solutions depending on the local availability of renewable alternatives.
Most solutions have downsides. With wind it's the risk to birds and bats, the not-insignificant cost of construction and maintenance, and the variability of the energy source. The aesthetic challenge windfarms might present is in my opinion debatable, as I think the wind farms in California are really rather pretty to look at - and aside from their ecolo-economic contribution they serve as a nice sort of highly visible billboard that says "Look, there's hope; we humans are trying to make a difference". However, as I've heard from people familiar with geothermal, the utilization of that source is in its infancy - about where oil drilling was in the 1930's - and the technology to locate and predict the strength and stability of the resource is not well developed.
I have serious doubts about the ability of nuclear to make a valuable contribution in the light of the fact that it cannot survive as an industry without massive government subsidies, it's also exhorbitantly expensive to insure. Nuclear projects are universally plagued by enormous cost overruns for construction to acheive only a relatively short reactor life span, and the problem of safely and permenantly storing the deadly waste has never been adequately addresed.
The most efficient and safest nuclear reactor available to us is 93 million miles away and has another good 5 billion years on it - we just need to plug in.
-
- +7
-
-
written by Thomas @Silent Spring, May 02, 2010
Wind is a nice temporary solution to the energy crisis, but something more substantial is need to fill the major engery gap that is going to open up through the decline of oil.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Sweetness Organic, May 02, 2010
There are windmill farms all over Europe and many in California. If our world is to be self-sustaining and non-polluting, it is important to accept the windmills. Little by little it is easy to look past them and they certainly do not get in the way of a magnificent Nantucket sunset.http://www.leapadaptive.com/
-
- +1
-
-
written by karen, May 06, 2010
This sounds like a no-brainer to me. And as I recently read (saw, rather) a joke on HP, what is the ramification if there ever was a disaster from a wind farm - more wind spilling into the ocean???
I think I'd vacation on Cape Cod more often now I know that it is more eco-friendly than ever!!
Way to go!
I think I'd vacation on Cape Cod more often now I know that it is more eco-friendly than ever!!
Way to go!
-
- +1
-
-
written by DANIEL D MARTIN, May 10, 2010
If European Union has a $trillion dollars to bail out mostly corrup robery of Greek eCONOMY ,We A merican should spend same amount in CLEAN WIND ,SOLAR and GULF STREAM (HYDROGEN PRODUCING) POWER that just by getting us rid of our oil imports dependency will pay by itself and got us a BALANCE BUDGET our solid economic growth badly needs!
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
I think the people that have a problem with wind / solar should all get coal and oil plants put onto their property and see how much of an eyesore that is. Everyone wants to consume power, but only as long as it is being generated near somone else's house where they can't see it.