CapeCodToday Blog Chowder

Nice try, Mav. But this story is about planning for the future - i.e., keeping the planet sustainable for more generations than just yours and mine.

As is the proposed use of Horseshoe Shoal.

So this is Ms. Healey's way of helping the US to become energy-independent, is it? Import that energy from a different foreign country than the ones we're getting it from now?

I can't wait to see how she'll handle education, taxes, etc......

Er... Peckham - help me out here. Was there an actual answer to your simple question in that last Durkinscreed?

What did you say? Sorry, can't hear you, the turbine at Harwich Tech, 6 miles from where I'm writing this, went round and deafened me.

Bobcat 87, if you are "not sure what the noise pollution would be like from 130 whining turbines", give me your address. I'll send you a video shot at the foot of an offshore turbine in motion, and you can decide for yourself about the noise pollution.

What's the betting that the d'Alliance will get their knickers in a twist over those extra eight feet and totally ignore the increased efficiency and reduced number of lights?

I don't think, CapeCodGuy, that you're suggesting censoring the news. Besides, if it isn't a school, it's MacDonalds. Or it's a post office. Or it's another place of work that just downsized its workforce.

More to the point , it's the guns. There are loonies in every country in the world, they just don't let them have guns in most other countries.

Opinionator uses the phrase: "Assuming that the US will continue to be unable or unwilling to banish firearms..." and there it is. We have found the enemy, and he is us. As long as we fly in the face of the logic of other modern countries where you DON'T get to walk around with concealed weapons, we will continue to have occasional massacres like this one. Why is this so difficult to understand?

In 1995, a school massacre similar to this happened in Britain. The government connected the dots and banned handguns. Period. End of story. The only downside (?) is that the Olympic shooting team has to go outside the country to practice. Big whoop. The Brits don't regard Olympic medal count as a measure of manhood anyway.

Well, StopCape Wind, I guess you would know what you're talking about when you imply that Cape Wind 'buys' agencies and legislators. That's the #1 strategy of the d'Alliance, after all. Let's see, the list now includes Ted Stevens, John Warner, Ted Kennedy, and many others too corrupt to mention.

The best government money can buy...

But I agree with the comment about the XTK 'personalities'; if that's their idea of current events, we could do better with interns.

Salvation for commercial terrestial radio has to be a stronger bond with the community; WOMR, in its own outermost-house funky way, does a decent job of that. QRC and XTK should do more, and do it better, which brings the discussion back to that storm of a couple of Januaries ago - where was the emergency information when we wanted it?

A separate issue is the fact that there are, basically, too many stations on the Cape. If you include NPR, WOMR, and all the Arbitron-reporting stations, there are more than 15, and our population here is - what? - 350,000? Not sustainable.

My own stations are niche music stations, catering to highly identifiable demographic groups. Our version of local content incorporates local remote broadcasts, listener clubs with local prizes, personality appearances, etc. We don't pretend to be news stations, and try to find other ways of connecting with the local community.

As for Jack, Frank, etc. - who cares?

I have the pleasure of working for two of the twelve Cape-registered stations (not counting NPR). The way commercial radio has gone in recent years (massive consolidation into the hands of a small number of mega-owners like Clear Channel and Entercom) has paved the way for its own destruction. Yes, you're right, it's manifested in bland, generic programming that could have been done in Seattle, Oshkosh or Albany. The rationale has been that it gives national advertisers a better deal.

But with the advent of ipods and satellite radio, such stations are the most vulnerable, simply because they offer little or no local content. And local content is the one characteristic that conventional radio can offer IF IT CHOOSES TO, to differentiate itself from the new competitors. So stations like QRC and XTK should try to optimize that part of their programming, to keep themselves relevant. God knows, you don't listen to QRC for the music. And I know they try -- I've been interviewed by Will Crocker on local issues (before politics caught his eye) and taped shows on XTK.

Personally I have trouble believing that someone with a name like Shonda Schilling actually exists. I think I remember someone with a name like that having a nightclub act....

But as far as the selection of 'average' voters is concerned, did you really expect Fox News to do it right? As in 'fair and balanced'?

As a Patrick man, I have to say I thought Grace and Christy came off well. Christy got a bit too personal on highway issues, but given his experience, he can be forgiven.

The real embarrassment was Healey constantly referring to her 'opponent', as if Grace and Christy weren't in the room. Also agreeing not to air negative ads, then spending her 'final statement' attacking Deval.

She's toast.

I was interested to see how uniform the vote was on the Cape and Islands - typically, for every precinct, where DP scored two votes, CG and TR scored one and a smidgeon each.

Notable exceptions were Nantucket (you remember, the place that voted 3/2 or 3/1 against the wind farm in a recent referendum), where DP scored 5 votes for every one scored by each opponent; also, precincts 3 and 4 in Yarmouth, where TR actually outscored his opponents.

Anyone know where those precincts are? (I think I can guess.)

So Patrick, the earliest and most sincere declared advocate for Cape Wind, scored HIGHER on-Cape than off?

Eeeeenteresting...

And bub's lola, or whoever you are, please don't leave open-ended comments like that on this blog, unless you have some meat to back it up with. That's like the Swift Boat veterans coming up with accusations against Kerry, which although totally unsupportable, cost him votes.

You were right the first time, Walter. It was same-old, same-old. I think the script the Alliance handed her to read was the same one they handed Romney the last time one of them spoke on a Cape beach. Oh that overworn rhetoric! "Imagine 130 steel towers.." (Whoever yelled out "imagine clean air!" last year must have been in the audience today as well).
And my personal favorite, of course: "pristine." Yup, out it came, straight from the Alliance Vocabulary Book (a very slim volume).

I wonder why she bothered? When the TV stations do their editing and air this segment, there will be enough evidence of impassioned, well-informed opposition to 'Legs' that she will appear as she really is: a salmon swimming upstream against an ever-increasing tide.

Never mind; she'll find it a lot quieter when back in the private sector next year.

Capri, were you maybe in Lecture Hall B while the rest of us were in Hall A? The only negatives last night were the reactions of most of the audience to the self-aggrandizing posturing done by some of the questioners. Almost all of them had to be told by the facilitator to stop grandstanding and ask their question. Had they done so in the first place, we might have learned more from the panel.
And since the tone of some of those questions was exemplified by the one in which the representative of a non-profit organization was asked what their financial interest in the commercial project was, we were doubly cheated.
Does last night count as a victory for you guys? If so, fold your tents now.

Healey: Romney clone. 'Nuff said.

Some other dilettantes: Beatty (R), going up against Delahunt (I think); in direct conversation with me, said wind farm good for jobs in Mass. In announcement speech, made no mention of it.
Barros (R), going against o'Leary (?) also for Cape Wind, but thought it needed a referendum, which just shows he didn't think much about it. As in, who gets to vote in said referendum? All Mass. voters? Barnstable County voters? Osterville voters? No clue. Probably took the position because 0'Leary didn't, likewise with Beatty.

OK, here we go:

Patrick: spent several days on the Cape before declaring his candidacy investigating the issue and talking to all sides. Declared support for Cape Wind when he announced his candidacy about a year ago, citing need for renewables, opportunity for Massachusetts to lead this new industry, jobs, etc. Very soon thereafter took a campaign swing through the Cape (courageous!) and people began to realise the tenor of the man. Even Democratic Party leaders against the wind farm supported him.

Gabrielli: sometime later, announced his candidacy and support for Cape Wind. Kept quiet on it for a long time, then within the last month started airing commercials showing his support (commercials having been made some time ago, showing pump prices of $2.77.....?)

Reilly: threatened to sue anyone remotely connected with the issue if the wind farm were permitted.

Mihos: a director of the d'Alliance. Fill in the blanks for yourself.

Other notables: of the three Lt. Gov candidates, Andrea Silber declared for Cape Wind, the others still thinking about it (cf. Kerry)

OK, Monponsett, having re-read your original "fun" comment I'll give you the benefit of the doubt; of course, the feminists may be all over you for the "legs" bit.

Of course, one would hope that race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. would be more transparent these days, i.e., Deval may become a good or bad governor who just happens to be black, not the other way around.

I wonder what Deval's legs are like...?

"...might be fun to have a black governor...?"
Gee, and I thought we'd made progress since Rosa Parks did her thing on the bus.
I thought one of the redeeming qualities about this gubernatorial race is that, to my knowledge, the race issue hasn't been raised once.
Strike that one.

No, Capri, the Danes aren't as arrogant as we are (like, when they stage a world sporting event, they actually invite teams from other countries).

What they do have is proof, from radar studies, that when flocks of birds approach a wind farm, they actually fly around it! Those that don't go around it fly exactly half-way between the rows of turbines. It seems they're smarter than all those boat captains and pilots you folks are convinced will pile into the turbine towers en masse.

And if the paradoxically named Mr. Good wants to find out the truth about wind energy in Denmark, he might attend the symposium given by Jens Larsen, director of the Copenhagen Environment and Energy Office, tomorrow night at CCCC at 7pm. You can ask those questions directly, then, can't you, Mr. Good?

Don't know what your problem with Patrick is; if you read his platform, he's big on returning more money to towns - especially Cape towns - from the State.

In general, though, yes, we'd love to vote for someone who isn't a millionaire, because we want someone in power who understands what it means to pay for electricity that's tripled in price. But the American system doesn't allow for that, nor does it allow anyone to get into power without owing debts and dollars to the interest groups that put him there. That's where the American system breaks down at a very fundamental and systemic level. The solution - to fund election races publicly, with candidates granted a set amount of advertising at no cost to themselves (but NO MORE than that) - is perhaps too radical for this country.

But at least Deval's (and Gabrielli's, I think) money does not come from old family fortunes. I think they both worked for it, and - certainly in Deval's case - realised the American Dream. That should count for something at the ballot box.

"the computer's software which interpret the radar signals were reprogrammed to account for the turbines".

Gee, it was as simple as that? And the Danes have a lock on software mods that we don't? I wonder if the Danish CAA ordered a stopwork on all wind farms while they ran around in circles trying to fix the "problem"....

Why can't we get a grip?

(cont'd)

...I formed my opinion of the poll rather early in the game.

I think Len Stewart also makes some good points in the above post.

I have a question about the State House (?) CSI (?) poll, however. Since the article talks of needing 1000 responses to accurately represent 210 million Americans, are 546 responses a reasonable number for..... what? Massachusetts? New England? The Cape? Just trying to get it clear.

Knowing the kind of reaction this story would generate, I made a point of reading the entire "20 questions...about poll results" article mentioned above. And indeed, it's quite obvious that th CNC poll was even less scientific (valid) than the Scargo Cafe sand-in-a-glass poll of a year or two back. I understand that the 'pro' group won that one, but none of them made a big deal out of it because they knew the whole thing was a publicity stunt to attract diners.

I'm reminded of that classic - probably THE classic - case of bad polling, represented by a newly-elected President Truman holding a newspaper with the headline "Dewey defeats Truman". In that case, the poll was a telephone poll, and many of the poorer voters who elected Truman didn't own telephones. Ergo, not representative, and not scientific.

So I can well believe that a self-selecting poll is meaningless. I voted in it, and could not detect a method in the interface for preventing multiple votes form the same person. Knowing the organized opposition's history of skewing polls and petitions this way...(cont'd)

OK, I was going to let this one go, but I held my nose and checked out the website, then realised I had to respond.

Despite the claim on this site, the Alaska site is NOT "nearly identical" to the Cape Wind proposal - in radar interference terms. The map shows that the Fire Island site is 4 miles up the glidepath, on the centerline for what is probably the main instrument runway (assuming the top of the map is north). That means that any plane dropping below the glidepath of the Precision Approach Radar during final approach could be affected. The same might be true for aircraft doing an ILS (Instrument Landing System) approach to the runway, where - again - the localiser and glidepath lobes would be pointing straight at the island. For all I know, the more recent Microwave Landing System may not be affected, however; that came out after I stopped flying. If the wind farm really is planned for Fire Island, it's a bad idea - I would not want to be dealing with an emergency on finals in bad weather in that situation.

But to say Cape Wind is similar to this is bogus.

OK, so maybe that one needs to be resited. Good catch. But do you see my point - a case-by-case evaluation is the only thing that makes sense, not a blanket panicky stop-work on all wind farms in the country. And from what I know of radar, a technical solution to allow co-existence in most cases is feasible.... if we want to find it.

No argument with you, Capri, about addressing issues. We just need to be sure they are real, and not manufactured, issues.

Given that we in the USA suffer from a 'Not-invented-here' mentality, in which we cannot conceive of any experience having value if it did not originate or at least occur in this country, I find it hard to believe that the FAA issued that order (under Pentagon pressure) in response to the quaint old Brits with their half-timbered cars having made a technical discovery before we did.

What I can believe is that Senator Warner, that well-known chum of the Alliance, exercised his influence on the Armed Services Committee (I believe I got the committee name right)to generate this piece of tendentious rule-making.

This month, radar interference. Next month... what? Turbines cause cancer in lobsters? Wind-produced electrons have terrorist sympathies? Our problem in this country is that we have the capacity to take some of this stuff seriously. No wonder Cape Wind's been at it for nearly five years now, and in the UK it takes an average of eight months to permit a wind farm.

Capri, if you understood anything about radar, as I - having spent ten years as an aviator - do, you'd know that its basic principles are the same whether the targets are land-based or sea-based. The physics doesn't magically change. And if you ever find yourself flying into Amsterdam/Schipol Airport (the Netherlands' main airport), you'll see a turbine of about the same dimensions as the proposed Cape Wind ones just a few hundred yards off the main instrument runway. It doesn't seem to bother the pilots or the air traffic controllers.

First off, thank you, Walter, for reporting a piece of news ignored - as to be expected - by the local 'fair and balanced' print media.

Second, we shouldn't be surprised at this story; there never was any 'there' there with the radar issue. It was always about creating delay for Cape Wind. The sad fact is that in raising the issue, the SOS gnomes made no dent in the timeline for Cape Wind, but managed to delay land-based wind farms across the country by several months. Those great environmentalists must be proud of themselves.

Personally, I'm more impressed by the candidate who researched the Cape Wind issue and declared for it before it was fashionable (or at least, an increasingly popular) thing to do.

Our next governor, I hope.

As always, Mr. Kleekamp presents the argument in a clear, calm, fact-supported way... and much more lucidly and objectively than any of us were on the other blog yesterday. So my apologies, Monponsett, for my antagonistic tone; what I was trying to say then is what Chuck so convincingly said today.

(No wonder he calls himself 'Footnotes..')

4. Monopoles are half a mile apart. Except for boats with wider beams than that, no problem. Planes: FCC has a minimum mandated altitude of 500 feet for en-route traffic. No problem.

5. Hurricanes: Don't know for sure, but I do know that the Danish, Dutch, German and British ones are exposed to North Sea storms, which believe me (having flown over the North Sea much of my professional life) are close to that strength. But check out the design of the monopoles - single closed columns, right? If you've ever seen photos of Hiroshima taken after the bomb, you'll see that even close to ground zero there were telegraph poles (single closed columns)unscathed and standing up straight. The blast just goes around them.

6. Your last two comments - why not build them off P'town or in the mountains - are the most revealing. In fact, why didn't you limit yourself to those? In other words, you're saying, never mind the answers to the other questions.... just stick them somewhere else, regardless of what the people in those other places might say. You just lost your credibility.

OK, Monponsset, let's take it one line at a time:

1. It's NOT a "beginning science". Maybe for us, since we've been ignoring it for a generation, but Europe considers it pretty much mature.

2. Why is the Sound the best place?

a. Excellent wind resource (mean speed abt. 18/19 kts.) You need wind to run a wind farm.
b. Shallow water. Keeps construction costs lower.
c. Protection from open ocean by the islands. Reduces max. wave height to reduce wear and tear on monopoles.
d. Proximity to grid access point and high numbers of users. Reduces overhead of getting power to shore.

3. How hard to build in deep water?
WE DON'T KNOW! THAT 'S THE WHOLE POINT.THAT'S WHY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT IS SPENDING LOTSA CASH TO FIND OUT IF IT CAN BE DONE ECONOMICALLY... OR AT ALL! PERHAPS WE SHOULD HAVE THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION BEFORE WE ABANDON WHAT WE KNOW IS POSSIBLE! Excuse my all caps; sometimes I don't contribute to this blog because I can't believe these things aren't intuitively obvious to people.

TO BE CONTINUED

Chuck or Jack:

Before someone in the know-nothing party picks up on that 45% figure and declares that even the most efficient wind farms lie idle more than half the time.......

could you define 'capacity factor' for the unwashed among us?

Thanks.

Taxpayer:

Just to comment on your point about the airport: for aviators, height restrictions only need to be enforced in specific areas, typically funnel-shaped footprints on the approaches to, and climb-out paths from, airport runways. There's not normally a need for entire towns to have a blanket restriction on structures. Of course, knowing Yarmouth (I work in that pit), they probably did exactly that out of ignorance.

The main point to make about this, however, is that it will be interesting to see what kinds of roadblocks people run into nationwide when they try to install these things. A restriction due to airport proximity, high-tension cables, etc. may be legitimate, but I think you'll find we're still stuck firmly in the 'oh my God, I may see it from my home' mentality. A resident of Sandwich, the host town for one of the 'filthy five' power plants, is currently being opposed in his bid for a turbine by neighbors who... I don't know, thought it would drag down the neighborhood or something.

Wake up, people.

Wind power considerations aside, Jack, you've just touched on an aspect of British law that many lawyers on this side of the pond sometimes regard enviously. I refer to the system of 'costs', in which defendants who incurs legal costs in an action that they win, can apply to have their costs paid BY THE OTHER SIDE.

Can you imagine the number of 'nuisance' lawsuits this eliminates? Can you see that woman who sued McDonald's when she spilled hot coffee on her lap risking having to pay Mickey D's lawyers? Nice system.

On the wind farm front, however, it's nice to see one aviation authority that isn't jumping on the 'hysteria' bandwagon.

Barbara: your comments increasingly bear the marks of desperation. For which I cannot blame you. Back out while you can still hold your head high, why don't you?

Neil, of all those in the standing-room-only Cape Cinema on Friday who saw Gore's film, you were perhaps the only one who didn't "get it". Even Mr. Vinick, as I predicted, opened his remarks by agreeing with the argument of the film. Are you saying he was wrong?

Well, Chuck, yes we COULD have a national vote on.... what? Each individual wind farm proposal? How about tide farms? Tachion generators?

Or how about a national vote to the effect that "the appointed governmental bodies be empowered and allowed to do their permitting work without interference from monied and selfish interests."

That way, it is to be hoped, piping plovers would be looked after only if there were a real threat to piping plovers, and not because self-appointed amateurs keep painting nightmare pictures of thousands of birds "chopped up" by "whirling" blades.

And there would be a navigational hazard only if the US Coast Guard deeemed there to be one, not because someone keeps telling us that supertankers will pass over the Shoals and play pick-up-stix with the turbine towers.

And on and on....

I guess we just have to see how much pressure Ted can put on the Commandant of the USCG to fall into line..... (his line, that is).

I'm not ignorant, however, of the fact that even with the Alliance's millions the pro-wind farm vote during opinion polls has consistently gone UP, both on the Cape (now at 61%) and statewide (now over 71%). This suggests that the more people find out about it, the more they are in favor of the wind farm. I've yet to meet anyone who changed from "con" to "pro" as they learned more about it.

through or OVER the neighborhoods of Roxbury, Dorchester, etc., where the poor folks without political connections live. It came as a huge shock to the highway engineers when the people got together and objected to highways literally over their heads. Ultimately, the people got their way, and so they should have done.
So, yes, local input matters, but when it comes to referenda and local votes, you have to acknowledge that some issues are too complex for sound bites, which - let's face it - is what people vote on in this country. Take Mr. Kleekamp's article: learned, informed, detailed, well-researched.... but how many people would take the trouble to educate themselves by reading that kind of tract before voting?
The other downside of local voting is the flip side of what I just said: that voters are very susceptible to simplistic, emotion-based propaganda, the diametric opposite of Mr. Kleekamp's article. It would allow well-funded but self-interested groups like the Alliance to use their millions to blanket the area with misinformation and affect the vote. (continued)

Jimmy: your questions raise interesting points. "Should (local) citizens be given the opportunity to vote?"
Let's look at that philosophically. If neighborhoods/towns/regions routinely voted on developments, I wonder if there'd ever be any highways built, let alone cell towers, prisons, power plants of ANY sort, waste treatment facilities.... you get the point. I remember some years ago when a prison was proposed for the town of New Braintree (where?), it was energetically opposed by the good townspeople because.. well, because they wanted it somewhere else. They prevailed, and I remember seeing on TV the clips of the New Brainteeans (?) cracking open cases of champagne to celebrate. My thought was: "wonderful,all you good people, but that just means someone else will be stuck with it." And indeed they were. I think it ended up on the median strip of Rte. 128, where millions of people get to see it every day.
On the other hand, decades ago it was thought that Rte. I-95 would continue through Canton into the middle of Boston... (continued)

To be fair, Jack, this is tax AVOIDANCE (not illegal), not tax EVASION (illegal). Having said that, I will repeat Solon Economou's take on this issue: how many of us can afford to set up an out-of-state organization to AVOID paying taxes in the state he wishes to govern. That's where, legal or otherwise, it becomes a telling issue, and detrimental to his candidacy.
That's where it smacks of the kind of self-interested governing we have had from Washington for the past six years. Do we really want to vote for that kind of mentality in Massachusetts?

And for all those of you who seem to be saying "everybody does it, so it's OK", let me say that IF that's true, it's because everybody sees our leaders doing it and concludes that, therefore, it's OK for them too.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Monposset, your first comment was unworthy of a serious forum like this. I'll take it as a temporary aberration.

In all fairness, whatever you think of Frank and his preferences, it takes a real man to stand up and admit a mistake publicly - would that Ted had his guts, or John Kerry for that matter - and just get on with it, rather than playing the usual political trick of modifying your position so gradually over time that you can pretend - after a suitable interval - that this was your position all along.

Onward and upward....

Of all the hypocrisy dribbling off the page in those pols' quotes, I find Mitt's as transparent as his hair gel. "The proposed Buzzards Bay wind farm is intriguing"? This is the guy who said "I've seen wind farms and they aren't pretty"? How could something that isn't "pretty" when Nantucket Sound was the only game in town be suddenly "intriguing" when it's in Buzzards Bay? Anything to do with levels of contribution?

And the BB proposal is in STATE WATERS, even!

Yes, you can almost see these pols wiggling around to position themselves favorably... to EVERYONE!
BTW, has the d'Alliance, who have spent years beating their breasts about the number of fishes, arctic seals, benthic creatures, roseate terns and piping plovers that would be massacred wholesale by the turbine towers in the Sound (not to mention the number of kamikaze pilots and helmsmen who would crash full-speed into them), made any kind of position statement about the Cashman proposal? Lordy, one would have thought that such a responsible environmental organization would be equally outraged by the BBWF as by the NSWF.... or haven't they had time to form their South Coast chapter yet?

Good thought, Monposett. I can only guess that it wouldn't HURT Cape Wind, and might help.
a) The region will still need the energy (we're not talking over-capacity or dueling wind farms).
b) As with the IBEW turbine on Route 3, the MMA and Upper Cape Tech turbines, etc., the more this becomes routine, the more the walls of opposition will crumble.

IMHO