Cape & Islands News

Capri, good to see you mentioning Denmark, where the honeymoon with wind power is coming to an end.

“Danes Not as Green as They Think”

Copenhagen Post, 03/29/07

“Denmark's reputation as an environmentally-friendly country contradicts the facts of a new ministry study.”

“With its windmills, small cars and solar power, Denmark has a worldwide reputation as an environmentally conscious country. But a new study commissioned by the Environment Ministry tells a different tale. Danes are actually some of the biggest eco-villains in the EU and, worse, are unaware of it….”

“Our politicians insist that we are the world's best in relation to the environment, …but we use a ridiculous amount of energy,' environmental sociologist Lars Kjerulf told Nyhedsavisen.”

“All of our daily activities contribute to Denmark having one of the world's highest CO2 emissions”, said Connie Hedegaard, the Environment Minister…”

The obvious glee with which "Dona and the Vigilantes" gloat over any perceived failure of renewable wind power is both disturbing and frightening. These antis are the Luddites of the 21st century and fated for the same contempt by history and their children.

Any delay in the building oc Cape Wind will only bring more and more of these;

67 more tons of sulfur dioxide and 41 more tons of nitrogen oxide pumped into New England's air, resulting in three additional emergency room visits, 58 additional asthma attacks, and $600,000 in extra health care costs.
61,156 more tons of carbon dioxide emissions from New England power plants, equivalent to adding 14,500 cars onto the road and worsening global warming that is causing sea levels to rise and is eroding the coastline of Cape Cod and the Islands...

When I was in school Ringo carbon dioxide was said to be aerial borne plant fertilizer and a good thing. It still is plant food as far as I know. Regardless of all you see today in the ‘media’ there is NO solid evidence to say that carbon dioxide is driving the slight rise in global temperature.

Please point me to solid evidence to show global warming is 'worsening' and causing sea levels to rise at a dramatic rate.

Seth Kaplan should consider that MMS may recognize that the state's rubber stamping of the FEIR might be in the developer's interest, but not in the interest of the public and the environment. This isn't a back yard shed that we're considering to build. This is a world's largest experimental industrial project with the potential to deliver astronomical adverse impact to this region.

For MMS to rush to judgment would be grossly negligent. It is in the interest of the public and our environment that Cape Wind, and all its potential adverse impacts, isn’t rubber stamped by them.

I agree with you, Capri, and Neil, a bill of goods is what Cape Wind is selling. The benefits extolled by this industry have not been realized by the forerunners. The sense of urgency is fueled fear that is fueled by greed.

I think we need to be looking at summer home view greed.

Capri:

Imco35 might be struggling to formulate a legitimate argument against a more comprehensive evaluation of Cape Wind by MMS. He may also be unable to provide rationale for the destruction of an ecosystem by a project that would create a “significant hazard to safe navigation” and kill up to 6,600 birds, annually, in a best case scenario. When faced with the facts, that this solution has failed to deliver the intended benefits, Cape Wind proponents understandably resort to, "I think we need to be looking at summer home view greed."

Your request for scientific data that backs up industry claims, reduction in harmful emissions rates can be realized with wind energy, has put Imco35 in an impossible situation.

The scientific data you're seeking, Capri, is industry propaganda as you are very well aware.

neil good wrote:

"Please point me to solid evidence to show global warming is 'worsening' and causing sea levels to rise at a dramatic rate."

Hmmm..hey, what’s this on CNN.com today?

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) – The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change…came out with a final report on climate change today. There was little doubt about the science, which was based on 29,000 sets of data. The final report is the clearest and most comprehensive scientific statement to date on the impact of global warming mainly caused by man-induced carbon dioxide pollution.

Amongst the projected outcomes in the next few years: “Coasts will be swamped by rising sea levels,” and “The world will face heightened threats of flooding, severe storms and the erosion of coastlines.”

This report was written by an international body of 2,500 scientists (capri), so I’m going out on a limb and giving this report credibility. Hey, if you’d like to poke some holes in the findings, go nuts, Neil. It’s 1,572 pages long, though. Better pack a lunch...

Capri wrote:

“Do give us a few examples of where any fossil fuel burning power plant has been shut or throttled down as the result of a wind farm?”

Denmark currently gets 18% of their electricity from their wind farms. Considering that modern wind turbines has only been around for about a decade, and installed capacity has increased nearly ten-fold since 1997 (source: World Wind Energy Association), I’d say that’s a good start.

Judging by that Copenhagen article, (“we use a ridiculous amount of energy”) it appears their biggest problem is conserving energy.

Hey, wait a sec…isn’t that your solution, Capri?

Perhaps the rhetorical question for you should be, “Do give us a few examples of where any fossil fuel burning power plant has been shut or throttled down as the result of conservation?”

Those dire IPCC predictions and projections are always fun to read fcuta14, but I’m looking forward to studying the full report- and the fine print- in June. I seriously doubt that since the last IPCC report in 2001 major, earth-shaking, advances have been made in sea level rise ‘detection’ science. You will find it is a very tricky field of science if you bother to look into it closely.

...and here is a short synopsis from the 2001 report-

IPCC Working Group I: The Scientific Basis

Chapter 11, Changes in Sea Level, Executive Summary

“This chapter assesses the current state of knowledge of the rate of change of global average and regional sea level in relation to climate change….”

“No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected…”

[How interesting fucuta14. Do you believe this is a credible statement from the IPCC?]

Sorry, Capri, we're not playing that game...

I was referring to when wind farms started to be produced & have their output tracked on a global basis, but I'll go with your statement of being an energy source for two decades. Even by that standard, it's still a form of energy production in it's infancy, with even more room for improvement.

Back in 1859, the U.S. only produced 2,000 barrels of petroleum. What happened to the use of that fuel source over the years?

Wind farms have allready proven effective (as noted by others on this board). I think it deserves more time to grow and improve.

By comparison, the conservation moment has been around for centuries. So I ask YOU again, why has conservation not worked? And plesae give me data to back up your argument.

Don’t get me wrong, I am a supporter of recycling and conserving, but it’s not getting the job done. Only with a combination of conservation, fuel efficient vehicles AND alternative energies can we begin to clean up the mess we’ve all made…

Hey, Capri...settle down now, because those are fighting words...

First off, you just called me a liar, which I am not, and I take offense to. "You have told untruths in the past about your identity... see previous comments by you as a user."

By all means go back to my originial post, where I stated I was new to the board (I was), and looking for replies from the anti-Cape Wind movement (I was). Where's the lie in that?

Your response as an alternative to Cape Wind was 'conservation', which as I outlined above, I do not feel is enough of a response to the current energy & global warming crisis. So I made my decision to support Cape Wind. "Just the facts, kid."

You want to continue down this path, please do, because you're energy & support of your cause, while noble, leads you to name-calling & immature behavior.

In that case, I regret coming back to this board if you cannot handle the current discourse like an adult. In fact, it's Friday night & I'm going for a drink. I suggest you do the same.

There is no navigation hazard with putting a wind farm on horseshoe shoal...

My concern is that Hy-Line ferries and Woods Hole Steamship Authorities are not equipped with very inexpensive ($2000) AIS - Automatic Identification System transponders. They shuttle 3 Million passengers per year and can't invest in an effective tools for avoiding collissions?

More than 50% of the petroleum in the US is transported from overseas aboard tankers. It reaches the US and is refined and transported again to final destination.

2nd largest oil spill in US history happened very near nantucket shoals.

So the waterfront is and has been industrialized for many years.

Wind farms and alternative energy was always the pet project of the democratic party.

The problems with wind farm occur when you park a wind farm next to the Wianno Club, the Kennedy Compound, and the rich and famous' summer homes.

Fcuta14:

Denmark 18%? "The Utilities Journal (David J. White, "Danish Wind: Too Good To Be True?," July 2004) found that 84% of western Denmark's wind-generated electricity was exported (at a revenue loss) in 2003, i.e., Denmark's glut of wind towers provided only 3.3% of the nation's electricity. According to The Wall Street Journal Europe, the Copenhagen newspaper Politiken reported that wind actually met only 1.7% of Denmark's total demand in 1999. (Besides the amount exported, this low figure may also reflect the actual net contribution. The large amount of electricity used by the turbines themselves is typically not accounted for in the usually cited output figures."

You didn't answer Capri's question.

Your in denial, Imco. Cape Wind the "significant hazard" in the waterway and...

National Air Traffic Controllers' Cape TRACON to the USACE:

"Placing 130 of these turbines in this area, in our opinion, a disaster waiting to happen."

We have some very serious worries over the location of this project. Cape Wind Associates has published “Airplane Flight Routes” on its web site, which depicts flight paths that are well clear of the proosed Wind Farm. The reality of this situation is quite different. This is a very heavily traveled area for air traffic. If you were to ask me, where is the worst possible place to construct a hazard to aviation and jeopardize safety in the Cape and Islands airspace, I couldn’t have picked a better spot than the current location.”

“The evidence of endangerment to all who travel by air sea over and upon Nantucket Sound is compelling.”

correction..You're in denial, Imco.

Hy-Line and the Steamship Authority are most concerned about the additional steaming required to deviate around the shoal. That is different from navigational hazards.

A shoal area exposed in parts at low tide is un-navigable in the first place.

AIS needs to be installed on these vessels.

MMA is one example of reduced CO2 emmissions. $100,000 of energy from the wind. Folks on the cape who are against the wind farm needs to know the facts. If they have not visited yet, they are too lazy (Physically and mentally).

You can buy carbon offsets, like Al Gore, or put your money where your mouth is, like Jim Gordon.

Dr. R. Lindzen, Prof. of Meteorology at MIT had this to say about the IPCC in a 6/11/01 WSJ editorial-

“…the IPCC Summary for Policymakers, which is seen as endorsing Kyoto, is commonly presented as the consensus of thousands of the world's foremost climate scientists…. The FULL report is an admirable description of research activities in climate science…”

“The Summary is a VERY different document. It represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations' Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists. The resulting document has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty, and conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is NO EVIDENCE.”

“Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. This is what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a REPREHENSIBLE practice that corrodes our ability to make RATIONAL decisions.”

[Emphasis added]

Capri & Barbara - go visit MMA before you spout about wind turbines any more. Check to see if you see any dead birds below the turbine (None). You'll barely be able to hear the turbine spinning around. Go talk to the campus facility staff about how much $$ the state saves from the installation...

That translates to less demand (throttled down powerplant / less co2..)

No need to visit Denmark, there's an example right in your front yard.

Wind turbines in your backyard? Coming soon...

You're missing the point, Imco35. Jim Gordon wants us to put OUR money, $1 billion, where his mouth is. And, for us to toss in Nantucket Sound for yard sale pricing of $1.36 per ocean Acre, per month, per MMS. In return for...a public safety hazard, and up to 6,600 dead birds, a taking of marine mammals by harassment, decimation of the fishing industry, and loss of $123 million in tourism, annually.

In return for all of this, we can expect zero, nothing, nada, as neither you, nor any of Cape Wind's other proponents, can provide scientific data that shows any benefits associated with wind power that extend to the environment and citizens.

Moses,

Right now the MMA turbine is producing Zero [0] Kilowatts. Good thing the cadets do not have to rely on the wind for power.

More points to ponder-

From Michael D. Shaw
‘Wind energy is another one of those ideas that captures the media's attention and the hearts of some in the environmental movement. Yet, it is costly, inefficient, and not even able to put a dent in our long-term energy needs.… it's all nothing but hot air.”

From L. M. Schwartz
“A single 555-megawatt gas-fired power plant in California generates more electricity in a year than do all 13,000 of the state's wind turbines. The gas-fired plant sits atop a mere 15 acres. The 300-foot-tall windmills impact over a hundred thousand acres to provide expensive, intermittent, insufficient energy.”

Neill - that doesn't fly. 1/2 of the campus energy is covered by the turbine. You can point out all the 0 wind days you want.

There is now public record showing the benefit.

Barbara - you promote all this nonsense for what? Your summer view?

Barbara - you and SOS/Alliance have done nothing for the public except force the bureaucracy to blow tax dollars on repetitive reviews due to harrassing lawsuits by SOS/Alliance lawyers.

$1 billion will come from investors. Your money is wasted along with money from us/taxpayers who want the wind farm to be built.

Well, Moses, you’ll have to forgive me if I tell you that I question what is being reported about the MMA turbine. Maybe I’ll find out what you say is true. If I do, I’ll be honest and report back. I can’t take your word for it. Sorry.

Even if I found the MMA turbine is a success, I’ll have no problem- because it is a public project on a small amount of public property. That’s not the case with Cape Wind’s plan to turn 25 square miles in the center of Nantucket Sound into a huge ‘for profit/private’ industrial project. Sorry again.

You will be surprised to know how many people don't want Cape Wind to be built.

fcuta14 wrote:

"That’s right – I am Matt Damon."

capri wrote:

"This was an untruth was it not, Wendy?"

(uh, no sweetie - it was a joke)

"Have that drink, Wendy. I will remain sober and telling the truth."

(you really should have that drink, capri. It might do wonders for your sense of humor!)

And if you & Barbara want to contine to call me Wendy, then I'm calling you Tweetie ('answer my question! answer my question! chirp, chirp, chirp!'), and Barbara, Clouseau.

BTW Wendy, is it true that you are actually donating 100% of the proceeds from your book to Greenpeace, AKA Chris Miller Executive Director, if so hats off, if not it's hot out here and I thought you stood for something.

bcuz, is it true that you are actually donating 100% of your unemplyment check to the Alliance to Protract Nantucket Sound?

This editorial from the 4/7/07 UK Times should go to the top of Fcuta14’s ‘to read’ list.

"A Climate of Intolerance"

“Facts, not emotion, should inform discussion of climate change… the world is in danger of being held captive by lobby groups that have distorted data, made unjustified extrapolations and attempted to stifle debate...”

“…The warnings issued by the IPCC are worst-case scenarios. The report, approved by 130 governments and endorsed by 2,500 scientists (few of whom probably had any hand in writing it), makes scary reading."

”Some dangers… are deliberate exaggerations… [and] far from proven.”

"The real danger of the zealots is that they brook no argument... even to ask what is natural is regarded as some sort of heresy..."

"The IPCC summary is inevitably a political narrative… each word will be endlessly and selectively parsed by the likes of Greenpeace and friends."

"…the environment is too important to be bequeathed to the hysterical."