Wednesday, August 15, 2007

The Scourge of "Big Wind"

America's first offshore wind project is being proposed for the windy bay of Cape Cod's Nantucket Sound. The 130 wind turbines would produce up to 420 megawatts of clean, renewable energy and supply three quarters of the Cape and Islands electricity needs.

However, in a testament to our societies 'me first' attitude, a coalition of wealthy residents - including Senator Ted Kennedy and prominent environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. - are campaigning against the project because of its potential impact on their seafront views. Witness the scourge of Big Wind first hand courtesy of The Daily Show.

6 comments:

Liz said...

Perhaps they'd prefer a nuclear power station in their back yard. (It's very safe, donncha know?)

E. R. Dunhill said...

Odiyya,
NIMBY is inescapable- regrettable, but inescapable. People need to adopt sustainability among their fundamental drivers.

liz,
For good or bad, I don’t see getting beyond fossil fuels without fission in the mean time. Clearly the danger is trading one unsustainable energy source for another, but people simply don’t have their heads around the changes in thinking and lifestyle that will yield a sustainable economy.
Cymru am byth.

-erd

Welshcakes Limoncello said...

Ted Kennedy - now there's an honourable man, I don't think! How selfish can people be?

E.A. said...

That smugly sarcastic video glosses over the real problem. Looking out at a pristine horizon, save for a few ships provides unspoken solace, and it doesn't take much to spoil that view. It has little to do with how rich or snobby you think these people are.

It's similar to looking at offshore oil rigs, and gets much worse when turbines are built onshore. The entire landscape is dominated by towers that are typically 400 feet high. The worst part is that you can expect more and more to be built. Europe is already experiencing a serious backlash.

Search the Web for:

wind turbines eyesore noise blight, etc.

Odiyya said...

I know, how limited of me. Sincerest apologies to all. I'll begin doing my utmost to protect your unfettered view of the unraveling of Earth's climate.

In light of your opinion, I'd suggest considering the words of Dr. David Suzuki,

"We're in a giant car heading towards a brick wall and everyones arguing over where they're going to sit."

I'd hate to create a smudge on the windscreen that would interfere with that fine view as well.

E.A. said...

The ultimate problem is that the human population never stops growing and demanding more "stuff," be it energy, food, water, land, etc. The current figure is 77 million more people annually and 3 million in the USA.

Society needs to scale down with more birth control so we can at least know how much total energy will be needed. Then, we could make wiser decisions on what to despoil and what to preserve.

With growthism so entrenched, there really is no plan. Just a lot of mindless building to satiate current consumption levels and vague planning for even more consumption.

The 113 million gallons (2.7 million barrels) of oil per year saved by the Nantucket project only amounts to 1/8th of U.S. oil consumption in one DAY (21 million barrels). Sure, it's something, but wind takes a lot more acreage to do what oil or nuclear can.

I am more amenable to smaller (50 foot high), more densely packable VAWT turbines than the 400 foot HAWT "War of the Worlds" monsters they keep putting up. That's as high as many hills and stands out too much.

A big part of my life is enjoying unspoiled natural scenery, and there has to be a societal agenda beyond mindless energy production. Sheeple are easily wowed by big tech projects and treat quality of life as an afterthought.