NOT IN MY BACKYARD SYNDROME!!! (CBS4) BOSTON The controversial wind energy farm proposed for Nantucket Sound could be soon be wiped out with the stroke of a pen. Supporters say it'll save Cape and islands residents tens of millions of dollars on their energy bills. Opponents claim it's a risky use of public land for private gain. The feds have yet to pass final judgment on the project. But now, it seems the process is about to be short-circuited by backroom political maneuvering. As soon as next week, a key congressional committee could vote on an amendment that would pull the plug on the nation's only offshore wind farm plan, an outcome long backed by senator Ted Kennedy. When asked if he played a role in that and if he supports it, Kennedy replied "I've been informed that it has been put in." Keller asked Dennis Duffy, of the Cape Wind Project, what it means to him if it passes. "Yeah, that would effectively be the end of the Cape Wind Project." Duffy says he's struck by Kennedy's refusal to come right out and admit what many suspect -- that he'd happily see the project killed right now. "I think there's enormous potential in terms of solar power and wind power all along the coastal areas and I think we ought to take advantage of it," says Kennedy. Why so circumspect? Even on the Cape and islands, where the wind farm has been highly controversial, our exclusive fast track by survey USA found half the public backing the project. Statewide, polls show landslide support for it. Keller asked Kennedy if he thinks Cape residents should have a say in something this important rather than having it killed in a back room. "I think it's dealing with overall shipping lanes, that's what is at issue," says Kennedy. "The regulatory process should be able to run its course," says Duffy. That crucial committee vote could come as soon as Monday or Tuesday of next week. And while that would be good news for critics who say Nantucket Sound is not the right place for the project, it could be bad news for Cape and islands residents who stand to save tens of millions of dollars on their energy bills if the wind farm is built.
Hate to say it, but I'm with Kennedy on this one. Why should the scenic splendor of the Cape be spoiled so a few local residents can save a piddling amount on their bill? If they want to put up some silly wind/solar stuff on their own land, fine, go ahead. But that's not what they wanted. They wanted to seize a huge section of public ocean to put up a hideously ugly wind farm. No doubt these are the same people who would go nuts over an oil rig in their sight and who shudder in fear over the very concept of a nuke plant. I'm all for non-polluting energy, but the only thing that is feasible is nuclear. Stop wasting time and money on play things like wind farms and start building some safe, non-polluting nuke plants. Even the French are well ahead of us on this.
I don't think it would have ever happened. I think they just did it to make Kennedy and Kerry look like hypocrites and it does.
Are you saying that if someone supports alternative energy initiatives he must support absolutely every single one of them regardless of whether they make economic, environmental or esthetic sense? And if that person is not rubberstamping proposals that are absurd he is a hypocrite? Talk about living in a black and white world, you're losing it sput.
It did make economic and environmental sense just not asthetic because Teddy K and John Kerry would have to look at them.
Tell that to the Danes, who get 20% of their electricity from wind, most of it offshore. Wind is economically competitive, more so than solar, probably more so than nuclear if you include waste disposal and regulatory costs. I'm all for nuclear power, but you've got to admit, wind power also has a bit of a safety advantage over nuclear. The only problem with wind is that it doesn't scale easily when it exceeds 10% of supply. The Danes are having grid stability problems. We're certainly not going to have to worry about that for a long long time. Martin
I don't want to quibble about whether or not using public land for a project like this is in the best interests of the state, but I've seen some of the offshore wind farms and they are far from hideous. http://www.airtricity.com/live/www....efault532c.html?itemid=396§ion=WIND+FARMS Edit... I should have added... IMO they are far from hideous.
So dodo, you, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry are all for renewable energy provided you don't have to look at it. So you are an environmentalist but with strings attached. laughable.
Says who, you? While aesthetics is a very valid and important issue which I am sure you don't understand, Kennedy did not say that, Kerry did not say that, I did not say that either. AAA said that earlier in the thread. As a matter of fact according to the article Kennedy has not said anything at all about the issue and Kerry is not even mentioned in the article. The anonymous article you posted does not explain who specifically opposes the bill and what reservations they have about it. You're therefore making unsubstanciated accusations, what else is new.
Come on, everyone knows the opposition to this wind farm was from wealthy owners of beachfront property and yachtsmen. They didn't want a huge field of wind turbines spoiling their view. Can't say I disagree with them. It's interesting how peoples' enthusiasm for an idea drops when they are personally affected. Say, does Kerry still have his fleet of SUV's? Another warning flag is when the proponents of the next great idea need massive government subsidies, or in this case, free use of the public's ocean, for the idea to be economically feasible. There may be a role for government in some of these new technologies, but subsidies are usually gifts to special interests, arranged by the K Street crooks.