As alternative energy grows, NIMBY turns green

Painting the Golden Gate Bridge yellow might cause less fuss than trying to install a wind farm off Cape Cod's historic coast.

But when you're trying to build where the wind is strongest or the sun is brightest, you never know what obstacles you may run into.

In Massachusetts, a proposed wind farm called Cape Wind was dealt a blow last Friday that will delay what would be the first offshore wind farm in the U.S. The Massachusetts Historical Commission agreed with local Indian tribes who claim that the location for the wind farm should be considered for listing in the National Historic Register because the Wampanoags' history and culture are "inextricably linked to Nantucket Sound," according to the opinion.

An offshore wind farm in north Wales, U.K.

(Credit: Vestas)

"If the tribes are successful, that would have a severe chilling effect (on the entire wind industry) because tribes up and down the coast could make the same claim," said Mark Rodgers, the communications director for Cape Wind. "Never before has an open ocean been caught up in this kind of declaration."

Then again, never before has a rare combination of private and government investment pumped so much into alternative energy projects. As these projects grow in frequency and scale, a new breed of NIMBY (not in my backyard) is emerging: Opponents of wind or solar installations who generally support renewable energy, just as long as they are built somewhere else. Coal and nuclear plants, it turns out, aren't the only energy facilities people don't want built in their backyards...or coastlines.

The Cape Wind fight, in particular, has brought together a testy combination of excellent wind conditions, opposition from well heeled local residents including members of the Kennedy clan, and a surprising assertion of Native American rights.

The National Historic Register is expected to make a ruling on whether the Sound can be considered eligible for protection as a traditional cultural property within 45 days. In its environmental review, the U.S. Minerals Management Service had previously concluded that it should not because the agency found the visual effects from the farm would be minor, and no historical archaeological resources in the Sound were identified. (Click for PDF of report excerpt).

Two tribes of the Wampanoags, who are descendants of the people who greeted the 17th century Pilgrims to Massachusetts, say they have long opposed Cape Wind because an unobstructed view of the ocean is vital to their culture, which calls for them to greet sunrise each day.

If there is a ruling in favor of the Wampanoags, it could delay approval by up to a year, according to reports. So far, Cape Wind, which is run by a group of investors who developed natural gas plants in the past, has spent $40 million over eight years. Developing the project, which would benefit from a tax credit or cash subsidy, is expected to cost more than $1 billion.

The claim is coming to a head at a time when Cape Wind had cleared all state-level environmental and siting permits, despite opposition from well organized local groups and powerful politicians, including the late senator Edward Kennedy. The family's compound would have a view of the 130 turbines, which would be placed five miles off the coast of Cape Cod. The project would supply about 75 percent of the electricity used on Cape Cod with 130 offshore turbines that would be visible as small spikes on the horizon, according to simulations.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said last week that he wanted his agency to make a decision on whether to give Cape Wind federal approval by the end of year--a deadline that is now in question.

On Monday, Massachusetts representative Edward Markey, who heads the House Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, sent a letter to Salazar on Monday, urging his department to approve the project before the start of the U.N. Climate Change Conference in early December because it would "send a strong message to international negotiators about the United States' commitment to developing sources of clean energy and reducing global warming pollution."

Green vs. green
Wind isn't the only form of clean energy that's running into opposition. Earlier this year, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce established a Web site called Project No Project, where it lists dozens of energy-related projects caught up in "green tape." The Chamber blames delays on NIMBY or "radical environmentalism."

The Chamber of Commerce has come under fire by environmentalists and a handful of its members for its opposition to proposed climate change legislation, but a number of renewable energy projects, mostly in wind, are being held up along with coal and nuclear projects, according to the Chamber.

Directly related to renewable energy is the thorny issue of transmission lines. Most of the wind and solar resources are in the middle of the country, far away from the areas of heavy electricity demand, which means that new lines need to be built to take advantage of the country's renewable resources.

There are a number of proposals to carry renewable energy around the country, including high-voltage power lines where less electricity would be lost in transmission. But many face local opposition because of the visual impact from these added wires.

For example, a coalition in Texas has formed called Protect North Palo Duro Canyon, where there is a proposal to string transmission lines across the canyon to carry electricity generated by wind turbines. The group wants to stop the development because of the environmental and historical significance of the place, the group says.

"Wind energy generated in the Texas Panhandle can serve the needs of populous cities such as Dallas and Austin and is important to the future of this state, but not at the cost of natural treasures such as the north Palo Duro Canyon and other beautiful areas in Texas," said Bob Currie, a coalition member.

In addition to drawing opposition from local landowners, the national push for clean energy is raising a "green vs. green" debate between the environmental benefits of renewable energy versus preservation of valuable ecosystems.

An illustration of the proposed Ivapah project in the Mojave Desert shows how much land is needed for utility-scale solar. This project, still being pursued by BrightSource Energy, would take up six square miles to supply electricity to 140,000 homes per year, using mirrors arrayed in a circle around a tower. Using less than 2 percent of the Mojave Desert's land would supply electricity for all the homes in California and cut carbon emissions by 30 million tons a year, according to the company.

(Credit: BrightSource Energy)

Driven by a California state mandate that utilities get a significant portion of their electricity from renewable sources, there's a land grab going in the desert areas of the U.S. Southwest that get the direct sunlight suitable for concentrating solar power.

These machines, which concentrate the sunlight to make steam for an electricity turbine, require large tracts of land for utility-scale power generation. As a result, most of these project developers have submitted project proposals to the Bureau of Land Management for siting and environmental reviews, which has created a backlog of applications.

BrightSource Energy, which has been picked to supply hundreds of megawatts of electricity to utilities, last month had to scrap a plan to build a solar power plant in a region of the Mojave Desert that had been set aside for conservation by the environmental group Wildlands Conservancy. California senator Dianne Feinstein said that specific location is not suitable for wind or solar development because it would lead to destruction of the desert ecosystem. Although she supports solar and wind development, she is proposing added protections for the region near other conservation lands, including Joshua Tree National Park.

Common sense?
With the list of clean-energy projects growing, there are efforts to speed up reviews. The Interior Department said last week that it would fast-track environmental reviews of six solar power plant proposals in California. Altogether, these projects would occupy 28,000 acres of land--almost the same area covered by the City of San Francisco--and generate 2.5 gigawatts of electricity, or enough for two million homes, Salazar told reporters.

In Massachusetts, which is encouraging development of clean energy businesses, state officials are considering a way to unblock reviews of a number of stalled wind energy projects.

Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick said last week's decision on Nantucket Sound and historic preservation listing was "ridiculous." In a statement, he said, "We are going to have to get serious about alternative energy installations where they make sense, and every environmental and regulatory review has concluded that Cape Wind makes sense."

The project's well organized opposition group, the Alliance to Save Nantucket Sound, says that placing turbines offshore will damage the environment and hurt tourism. It even recruited regular Martha's Vineyard visitor Walter Cronkite to record radio and TV spots, but he later changed his position, saying he "hadn't done his homework."

Meanwhile, environmental groups are trying to find ways to distinguish NIMBY sentiment from the real need for environmental protection. In general, groups like the Sierra Club favor renewable energy development, even though wind turbines, for example, do pose a danger to birds and bats. Even the Massachusetts chapter of the Audubon Society, which counts many birders in its members, has given conditional support to Cape Wind.

What's needed is data to rule out specific locations that pose too many risks, environmental groups say. Environmental advocacy group the National Resources Defense Council earlier this year developed an online mapping tool to choose the sites best suited for renewable energy. The point of the application is to show people the most suitable sites, which should avoid roadblocks during the review process.

"We need to develop our renewable resources if we are to address the challenge of climate change, but that development must be carried out in an environmentally responsible way," said Johanna Wald, a senior attorney at the NRDC in a blog post. "If it is done right, informed environmentalists will, I believe, stand up in support."

[gotrsx6]

Its troubling how stupid these people are. They scream about coal and gas ruining the world, but when green comes knocking in their state, they don't want anything to do with it. The epitomy of why this problem will not be solved by spineless politicians. A few hundred thousand acres of desert is worth saving... over most of the forest and grassland in the country? Don't worry, just keep fighting green, there will be plenty of desert for the taking. Go democracy!

[Random_Walk]

Indeed. I had to fix a sentence in teh article:

"California senator Dianne Feinstein said that specific location is not suitable for wind or solar development because it would lead to actually doing something about alternative energy instead of just talking about it. Although she supports solar and wind development, she is too interested in making sure that someone else has to bear the burden of actually producing it."

It exposes something I've always found irritating with the faux-green crowd: It's that sense of entitlement, in that everyone else except them should bear the actual burden of improving how humanity carries itself along.

You know? There's an old saying of sorts...

A developer is someone who wants to build a house in the woods. An environmentalist is someone who already has a house in the woods.

[cgates13]

Here's the reality: so-called green technologies are anything but. They require the effective destruction of either life (in the form of so-called "bio fuels", which replace food crops with non-food crops using the same space and other resources - the jury is still out on algae-based fuels) or land (in the form of the blight of wind farms, solar plants etc.). As an outdoorsman I am at least as revolted by the lies surrounding these projects as I am about clinging desperately to last century's fossil fuels.

There is only one current solution to the greenhouse problem that is both environmentally friendly and doesn't convert hundreds of thousands of square miles into effectively useless wastelands: nuclear fission. In the future, maybe fusion. Nukes are *the only* technology that can get you there from here. They have high availability (95% vs. <90% for coal and ~20% for wind), they have high energy density (how many hundreds of square miles of windmills would replace one big nuclear plant), they are safe (casualties from even the worst incident in the U.S., 3 Mile Island: ZERO), and radioactive waste is a canard (for example, take 1/10th of the area that you were going to use to build a small solar facility and put your waste there; that is, the portion, if any, that you didn't reprocess into something useful).

Any other solutions are basically lies, or an argument in favor of reducing our energy utilization and therefore standard of living and ability to progress.

[Random_Walk]

Here's an even bigger reality: Either we develop alternate means of energy today and learn to improve them, or we starve and fight wars tomorrow.

Nuclear energy is an excellent means of gaining energy. So is solar, wind, and hydro. However, they all have their flaws, just like any other human endeavor.

"for example, take 1/10th of the area that you were going to use to build a small solar facility and put your waste there"

Google for "Yucca Mountain". It was sited in a perfectly quiet geologic zone with no water table to speak of, yet it never opened... care to guess why?

"Any other solutions are basically lies"

Absolutism, supported by an emotional generality, is more often than not a stupid means of convincing.


Lookit - until someone manages to capture a herd of unicorns and converts their farts into viable electricity, we're stuck with doing what we can, with what we have. How about helping out instead of sitting on some ideological tower?

[cgates13]

Random_Walk: most people who talk about wind and solar, at least that I've seen, make emotionally hysterical arguments about "nuclear waste", as though it's some intractable, magically deadly thing. It's not. Most of the discussion around the availability and costs of solar and wind ARE lies, because economically they don't stand on their own, and the secondary costs of land use are completely discounted. They are geographically specific solutions that have limited applicability in the general sense.

I am completely supportive of the use of solar for energy production on a micro basis (e.g, at my house); but on a macro basis, solar remains a research project. I personally discount wind completely, because of the land area required.

Hydro can be good, but is environmentally questionable.

My main point is that nuclear is typically excluded from rational discussions about energy usage, primarily because of the emotional / absolutist arguments based largely on what appears to be quasi-religious and definitely superstitious motivations (insofar as they aren't based on repeatable analysis).

[ctrue]

For the growth needed to supply energy for the future will require all of the above mentioned solutions. Where I live in Iowa it is windy at the ground level very often and at the height of the turbine is much greater. The next two days are foretasted to be at the lowest 10mph to 25mph. The wind farms are almost always turning.

There is a school district in a town about 35 minutes from me who built a 600KW wind turbine for under $700K in 1999. It produces an average of 818,496KWH per year. The school has paid off the turbine and now provides them with 60% of their needs for almost nothing other than maintenance. This seems very cost effective to me.

The newer turbines are more efficient and only offset some of the land. All of these wind farms are scattered in the middle of corn fields and still allow farmers to utilize most of their land. There several hundred turbines within 20 miles in all directions of me and I enjoy seeing something other than mile after mile of corn and soybean fields.

[Seaspray0]

Maybe the NIMBY's should take a trip to california and talk to the people who live around or travel through the wind farms and actually go through them. They are an impressive sight to see. Everyone I have ever talked to said they were beautiful. Some even went out of their way just to see them on their travel. That's a stark contrast to an ugly industrial complex which those same NIMBY's never seem to complain about.

[jennytalia]

@cgates13.

You throw in some decent points - enough to make me think you've thought about this a bit, but:

1. Nuclear is not a scalable resource. Nuclear plants operate "base load" and are extremely inefficient (and slow) at ramping up or ramping down. It's all or nothing with them. On the lfip side, Hydro, wind & solar are immediately curtailable and offer the grid true flexibility.

2. Wind is not a poor land use. Most wind facilities operate on farmland, typically way out in communities well away from high value commerical or residential land (buying/leasing high price land would be economic suicide). In the overwhelming majority of cases the land is made available back to the farmer for grazing rights - and the farmer also gets a nice fat royalty check (and the local area gets a massive property tax kickback).

I firmly believe we need a mix of all fuels - nuclear has a place for baseload, gas is an excellent peak supplier, coal is cheap and hydro, wind, solar, biofuels help reduce the impact of coal. Anyone who advocates for reliance on 1 technology is deluding themselves.

Here endeth the lesson.

[Goremaster]

How are wind turbines a blight compared to a giant coal pit or a Nuclear Reactor ? I think thats a bit severe don't you ?

[TerribleToaster]

Just an fyi, bio-fuels don't replace food crops with non-food yielding crops. They use the large amount of inedible bio mass from food crops (corns husks and the likes) to create fuel. There are some farms that do growth crops just for bio fuel but the United States uses less than 2% of its usable farmland; there is no shortage of land for growing crops that use very little resources.

It is generally agreed that the best possible solution is a cocktail of many different types of power sources (wind, water, solar, nuclear, and human) as diversity of design allows for a natural safety net (I'm sure we've all heard to diversify many times before). One could get involved in the arguments surrounding these sources and the technologies in development to counter their respective negatives but it is more important to get out of greenhouse producing first, one step at a time ladies and gentlemen.

[Static-X-Machina]

Well, To come at this from a different angle, let's say hurricanes start ripping through the area.... what then?
I'm all for some green energy and I'm all for some cars that are fully electric, have a good battery life and decent power.(enough power to accelerate up a steep incline. I live in tennessee and there are many hills and mountains.)
But I have to question what happens when the extreme forces of mother nature come whipping around those things. We are talking several million when it comes to a wind turbine right?
think about the maintenance calls on that thing while your at it.
Would the service guys be flown to it on a helicopter, or would they be brought in by boat?

And about the desert? OH DEAR LORD WE LOSE ALL OF 2% OF THE DESERT?! OH NO WHATEVER SHALL WE DO?
Please... I know we are all protective of our environment to some extent but to be sentimentalist on a topic such as this is just ludicrous!
It's going to either be destroyed by pollution and acid rain and smog and toxic waste, or it will simply have a FRIGGIN BUILDING taking up a small percent of land.

The only real problem you have with super solar towers is maybe the shine from it hitting an aircraft and blinding the pilot.

GROW A SET!
GET GREEN NOW!
BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!

[solitare_pax]

Perhaps instead of wind turbines, they should look at some of the power generators that use tides and wave motion to generate power. Both options would be so low that they wouldn't mar the view of the horizon.

[Joe Real]

Of all places in the world, the NIMBYs would claim they are scuba diving in that historic spot where you plan to install underwater generators! If that doesn't work, then just they same, they will enlist some native American Indian tribes that they used to dump the ashes of their ancestors into that sacred area and must be respected even under water.

While China surge way ahead of the US, the NIMBYs, who are usually rich and politically influential, will immobilize the rest of us to stone age.

[SactoGuy018]

@Joe Real, your remark about a very small groups of rich and politcally influential NIMBYs being extremely selfish and ruining it for everyone else is so "on the mark." It may take a change of leaders in the White House and Congress to finally put the foot down on these selfish people and tell them that your attitude does not make economic sense for the vast majority of people--a return to "common sense."

[Heed83]

This is yet again illustrative of left wing thinking; take the freedoms and progress bought and paid for by capitalism and American lives, use that freedom and progress to complain about the very process that gave you that ability, and then when you finally get what you want it turns out that isn't good enough either, or isn't REALLY the direction we should have gone in. Iraq wasn't the war we should have fought, it was Afghanistan, now we are there and it isn't really victory there that matters, but maybe more Pakistan. Our planet is in imminent danger of catastrophic disaster from global warming (never mind the fact that global and warming and cooling have taken place for millions of years without us, it is solely our fault now) so if we don't act now we are all dooooooooommmmmed!!!.... it's like a bad infomercial. But of course the very green technologies that we MUST go to, even though they are as yet too inefficient to be economically sound, are just too damn inconvenient or dangerous to the endgangered -insert small insignificant creature here- to implement. So I wonder what the hell they really want??? The stone age probably.

[jarreauterry]

Left Wing says Doom & Gloom. Scare the masses, Cough the cash. Y2K, Wars, Global Warming all proactive propaganda to extort the people. Regardless of your thoughts about the planet, we need renewable energy anyway. We need jobs, shelter, water and basic fundamentals of a community. Your a fool for backing any war, that's right wing behavior. The IMF finance both sides of the war, and it's never over what you think. I support you about Capitalists, they create jobs in this world- Ever been hired by a poor person? Besides at the end of the day, we are all on the same side- we all crave for a better standard of living!!! If you wanna bring yourself up to speed, with my solution to all this mess- www.ecoenforcers.com

[rapier1]

Yes, much better we just accept the horror stories from the right about terrorists in every back yard which requires us to give up our rights and protections. OMG! YOU ARE LETTING THE TERRORIST WIN!11!111!! Why do you hate America?

[jarreauterry]

Re: gotrsx6 - I understand your point of view- But Wind & Solar suck!!! They don't have base-load power, and require Coal when the sun & wind aren't functioning. Solar uses **** loads of water, which is raped from our drinking water. Plus the cost of maintenance is shocking. The return on investment is crap- just ask T Boone Pickens haha. He bought 657 Wind Turbines off GE, for $4 million each- damm shame :)

Re: cgates13 - Your half way there! Yeah those greedy grubs that sell allocated food resources for fuel, because they get tenfold more, is criminal. Countries are low on food already, let alone, sell out farmers cashing in. Our points of view end there! Nuclear is much safer then it was decades ago. However no one in the world would pay billions, and have to wait 15 years for erection completion. Who would invest in that, knowing that office change every four years, and could potentially revoke legislation. I could turn that money over 10 times within 15years, not break-even.

The only solution is BioMass with Hybrid Battery Technology. What if I said, Imagine a 1MW Urban Bio Mass system, that only required 1hr worth of Bio Fuel to generate 24hrs worth of electricity. This is caused by Electricity Storage capabilities that obviously produce extended feed times. Which ultimately reduces your operating costs. The Bio-Fuel isn't a food group either... BioMass is the next commodity!!!

www.ecoenforcers.com

[weirdman6]

About the part where you say they "rape" the water from our water supply...In other countries that have actually managed to get past all of the opposition to build these things, they use molten salt instead of water...so no raping of the water supply is required, and the salt stays hot during the night and through cloudy days, so there is a constant supply of power. So hopefully by the time they get a farm in the US, they will look into it.

[jennytalia]

@jarreauterry

Thermal plants typically use tons more water than solar. Trust me, I worked at a coal plant.

Your idea of Urban is actually a good idea (Google CHP - Combined Heat & Power systems - that are popular in Germany and Scandavia and deliver both power & hot water to communities).

However your hypothesis for Biomass, your crazy math and your totally weak website undermine you. "Biomass" is generic and refers to a huge variety of fuels. Anyone paying $M's for a power plant wants to guarantee that it will have a fuel supply for 20,30,40 years - just look at the failed Biofuels plants recently for that. Your website makes me believe we can do that by eating more vegatables.........more power to you my friend, keep smoking those funny plants..... As for your "joke" about 1hr of bio fuel to generate 24hrs of electricity: inputs-losses = outputs. The only way you'll get 24 x the use is if you reduce your load demand by 24 times. You can't "create" electricity. Generation has losses and batteries also lose over time. As Scotty would say - you cannot change the laws of physics.

[CorwinB]

You are dead wrong about solar. We have solar power that uses the sun's heat to make steam that turns a turbine generator. it can store that heat in molten salt that allows it to run all night long with time to spare. And those are the ones pictured in the article. Stay up to date on tech or don't comment on it.

[solar_thermal]

Weirdman, while I agree he is way off base in his comments, the rape of water he is talking about has nothing to do with the steam cycle or molten salt. The amount of water used in the steam cycle of any plant is minimal. It has all to do with the cooling of the plant and molten salt will do nothing to help that.
Jennytalia I agree with most of what you said except that a solar plant will use much less water than a coal plant, at least in the plant they will be pretty similar. They are both thermal plants and if you were to see a solar thermal plant you would recognize most of it from your coal plant. Turbine, generator, cooling tower, and condenser are all the same. Now if you slurry your coal, like the plant in Laughlin Nevada used to, then I would guess you would use a lot more.
Corwin I think I remember you from another blog. While I sometimes agree with you I feel you are one of those who have decided what is right and then goes about getting the information to prove it, really backwards from how you should do it. When you make statement like your last one I would have to say right back at you. There is NO proven solar plant that can run 24/7/365 with time to spare and it is not going to happen any time soon. The exciting thing about the molten salt is it allows the plant to run more like a real power plant. By the way the plants in the picture are not planning on using any type of heat storage at the present time.

[namarchetti]

A well written article, covering across the United States all of these types of projects facing environmental opposition. It is an interesting conflict indeed.

Nino
EarthTechling
http://www.earthtechling.com/

[Lerianis3]

It's not a conflict.... it's the bottom line that the enviroloonies real intentions is to send us all back to the Stone Age or the 1700's way of living. Basically, most of the enviroloonies HATE our society as advanced as it is today, because it is EXTREMELY HARD to control what people do, unlike back in the 1700's when they could dictate to people what they could do and not do.

[bsharkey]

proof most of the greenies aren't remotely serious about doing something profound for our environment. they'd rather putt putt around in their Priuses pretending they're "saving" our planet.

[Rick Cavaretti]

Rather than following in your footsteps making comments meaningless and non-constructive to the conversation?

[CorwinB]

there is a difference between the meaning of the word most and the word some. Look it up.

[ReigningChamp]

I understand that everyone wants some sort of clean, efficient and safe form of renewable energy, but can someone explain why nuclear energy is such a taboo in this country? I get that the idea of the plant exploding is insanely frightening and what we do with the waste is still an issue, but isn't most of the waste recycled? How often has a nuclear plant blown up, especially with how tightly regulated and inspected as they are? Is burning coal really that much safer? Are solar panels and wind turbines really that much more economically sound?

[CorwinB]

None of the nuclear waste is recycled. Fission breaks the fuel down into smaller elements leaving only a tiny amount of the original uranium behind. It is not rationally possible to recycle the waste. It would involve fusing heavy atoms back together. There is nothing that I can compare the difficulty and danger of that to.

[Lerianis3]

Corwin8, actually, it IS possible to recycle the waste. There are nuclear power plants overseas that take the nuclear 'waste' from one plant and use it in another, more recently designed, plant.

Basically, we could shuffle nuclear waste from plant to plant to plant to plant for 300 years if we would use some of the new methods of reusing 'spent' nuclear material, putting off having to worry about nuclear waste until centuries in the future, where someone will have found out a way to deal with it.... possibly by congealing it into a block like cement.

[ssco00]

There is no recycling of spent nuclear fuel in this country. Contrary to other comments made about this, nearly ALL the Uranium in the fuel is left and could possibly be recycled, but this is difficult and expensive and still leaves many unwanted radioactive materials needing long term storage. Mining new Uranium and enriching it slightly, is cheaper. Keep in mind that Uranium fuel is oxidized into a ceramic and formed into cylindrical pellets that are sealed inside tubes that are fabricated in bundles for the reactor fuel. It takes a lot of energy to reduce that oxide back to a metallic from needed for chemical separation that would allow the separation of unwanted fission products. Some of those products can even be used as fuel themselves. The French used to do some of this, or at least sent they spent fuel to Russia and paid them for the work. The Russians got to keep the Plutonium for other uses. I think this has stopped. There were experiments using metallic Uranium as fuel. That can be reprocessed much more easily, but had new problems of its own. None of this is really simple.

[carlv888]

Considering we have already developed a bacterial strain that can convert nuclear waste to a non-hazardous residue, I agree, nuclear shouldn't be such taboo. The only reason we don't deploy this and other kinds of non-hazardous yet highly efficient and effective waste management technologies is that these reduce profit margins of existing, politically embedded parties.

[hortgirl]

STOP BREEDING.

[Random_Walk]

...call us back when you've had your vasectomy/tubal-ligation, and can prove that you have had no responsibility for bringing any children into this world.

Thx in advance.

[kxmmxk]

Typical of the Kennedys. They've always been ones to talk a good game, but heaven forbid any of it ever apply to their personal lives.

Wind farms are probably the least destructive form of energy creation there is. Those windmills don't harm anything, and although they change the view, it's not a bad view. I fail to see the problem. If they don't allow things like this, the coastline will be ruined by the alternatives, and most likely the coast won't even be there anymore eventually.

It doesn't harm a single thing!

[ledhead1962]

What a frigging joke! Let me get this straight - people are commenting that nuclear power would be more desirable then putting wind or solar farms up? Really! Nobody knows what to do with the waste from the plants that are operating now. The stuff lasts for decades and any storage plans cannot allow for what is going to happen that far in the future no matter what they tell you. No different then what has been done with fossil fuels in that the future has been differed for expediency. Not to mention that anyone who thinks that finding a wind farm site is problematic should try asking the Kennedy's and the rest if they want a nuclear reactor built in their backyard! The whole nimby thing reminds of all the municipalities that made bylaws against clotheslines for aesthetic ideals that have been re-thought now that drying clothes in electric dryers has become so expensive. How totally exasperating and, well, dumb.

[Seaspray0]

I would love to see wind and solar power, but the pro nuclear guys do have a good point when it comes to capacity. I live within 20 miles of 2 nuclear reactors, so they are somewhat in my back yard. The utility wants to double that to 4 reactors. I'm all for it, just as I'm for wind and solar in my back yard.

[rapier1]

Actually, plenty of people know what to do with the waste product. The problem is that the masses tend to listen to the scare mongers instead of the experts.

[CorwinB]

not decades, millennia

[Lerianis3]

Actually, Corwin8, not millennia. Within 80 years, the nuclear byproducts that are the most 'radioactive' have broken down even further (according to theories and data metered out based on existing data) until the radioactivity from them is just a LITTLE above background radiation.... so low, that could you bathe in the stuff for 30 minutes and not get a lethal dose of radiation.

[craiggorsuch]

The primary issue with Greenies and Nuclear power is that the Politicos don't want The People to have political/social power without the express control of the Politicos. This is why green power is also subject to NIMBY as well as the political hot button that is Nuclear Power.

The issue is NOT technological but political! The politicians WANT The People in a state of dependency or they can't convince us that we need them around. If we don't need them, they might have to actually work for a living instead of living on our taxes.

Nuclear Power is 100% safe and definitely effective. France standardized their plant design a few decades ago, and there have been no issues. They also recycle their spent fuel for reuse, drastically reducing the need for long term storage. Folks... There's a 5MW nuclear reactor on the CAMPUS OF STANFORD! Still think it's not safe?

Nuclear presents the optimum transitional technology away from using hydrocarbons for production of domestic electricity. (We still need it long term for auto fuel - ANWR and the OCS can completely replace the geopolitical monkey on our back that is "oil from the Middle East".)

We NEED to DECENTRALIZE our energy infrastructure, which includes the mass proliferation of nuclear power plants. (If it's good enough for Iran *cough*cough* why is it not good enough for us?) Eventually we need to decentralize to the point where every home and building built in the nation is 100% off the grid - but we're 40-50 years away from this goal.

If our politicians don't hear from us, they assume they have the authority to make the decisions according to the interests that pay them the most or promise the most political ROI. Regardless of whether there is an R or a D after their name.

[cocobolo-sungod]

The French have no issues? They recycle their spent fuel for reuse? I don't think so.
Why, then, do they dump their spent fuel in the ocean if it is so reusable?
You really should read an excellent article by Michael Welch in this month's issue of Homepower Magazine. The French - while having every intention to supply the world with nuclear reactors - have failed to do so.
This is nowhere near as cut and dried as you would have us believe.
However, I completely agree with you that every home needs to be off the grid in future. The realistic chances of that happening are zero. The reason for that is twofold.
One, far too many folks are not interested in making their own power systems, even though it is relatively simple.
Two, the economy of scale for utility size systems is usually just that - economical.
What we need are options. And it seems to me that these options are very close to knocking on our doors right now.
We can use domestic size PV systems, small wind gennys and solar water heating today at modest cost. Electric vehicles will soon be on the market and re-chargeable using PV, or wind.
I hope it all comes together sooner rather than later.

[barbaradurkin_1]

Never before has there been a declaration of a "taking" as proposed by Cape Wind of 24 square miles of an Essential Fish Habitat, squid spawning ground, that supports heritage trades as the economic driver of Cape Cod, Nantucket, and Martha's Vineyard.

The NIMBY chatter obfuscates the Cape Wind adverse impacts discussion--by no coincidence.

November 9, 2009

To the Honorable Chairman Markey and the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming:

According to the November 9, 2009 Wall Street Journal, ?the chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Rep. Edward Markey (D., Mass.) urged Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to make a decision before the UN summit on a Massachusetts company?s proposal to build a wind farm off Cape Cod. The project ? known as Cape Wind.?

?Approving the Cape Wind project as the nation?s first commercial offshore wind project before the start of the U.N. conference would send a strong message to international negotiators about the United States? commitment to developing sources of clean energy and reducing global warming pollution,? Mr. Markey said in a letter to Mr. Salazar made public Monday.?

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/11/09/climate-fight-epa-sends-global-warming-finding-to-white-house/

However; Page 47 MMS Final OCS rules state:

?Based on comments received on the NPR, MMS added a requirement to this section that in order to qualify to become a lessee or a grant holder, the applicant must demonstrate technical and financial capabilities to construct, operate and maintain, and terminate/decommission projects for which you are requesting authorization.?

http://www.mms.gov/offshore/AlternativeEnergy/PDFs/AD30RenewableEnergy04-22-09.pdf

This OCS ?Lease? section applies to Cape Wind, at minimum. Cape Wind does not have technical capability to construct Cape Wind as they have no manufacturing source for their wind turbines. Cape Wind has no wind turbine purchase contract, project financing, or a Power Purchase Agreement.

Thusly, Cape Wind is not qualified to become a MMS lessee under the Final OCS rules.

Furthermore: The National Environmental Policy Act provides assurance of public safety threatened by Cape Wind as proposed for Nantucket Sound.

http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2009/09/19/3290406-cape-wind-a-public-safety-hazard-proposed-for-nantucket-sound-

Additionally: Cape Wind, proposed for a migratory flyway, should be reasonably anticipated to violate the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, a strict liability criminal statute?and avoided.

http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2009/03/11/2534556-dear-secretary-salazar-please-do-not-sign-off-on-cape-wind-

The Cape Wind review v taxpayers and ratepayers (Cape Wind does not provide a fair return to the Nation for the use of our resources):

http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2009/05/13/2813446-cape-wind-offshore-project-review-v-taxpayers-and-ratepayers

Cape Wind is in conflict with the OCS Final Rules:

http://bjdurk.polls.newsvine.com/_news/2009/05/13/2813346-cape-wind-is-in-conflict-with-final-ocs-rules-and-applicable-laws?threadId=0

Most Respectfully,

Barbara Durkin

[Seaspray0]

Do you want to know what I see when I look off my coast line? Oil rigs. I would trade them any day for a wind farm. If you had 1000's of rigs peppered off your coastline, I bet you would sing a different tune. If this project goes down because of you NIMBY's, I'll have no objections to voting for "drill baby drill" off your coast.

[rapier1]

Hi Babs,

You have a lot of words but no real argument. Do you want to try again?

[solar_thermal]

I am trying to say this in a nice way but I do not feel you really understand how the power industry works or really have a great understanding of the renewables you discussed. First off as someone who operated some of the largest solar- thermal plants and who knows a thing or two about wind I would never call the maintenance costs shocking. They are far from nonexistent but neither is biomass. You are correct that wind and solar will not produce base load power. Wind, depending on where it is installed, is one of the cheaper ways of producing power. PV solar does not require the water you were talking about. Solar thermal uses about the same water as the biomass plant you were touting. The problem is it most often has to do it in the desert. Solar thermal shows some real promise to be able to store heat so it can adjust load to when it is most needed and extend hours. Also if dry cooling proves effective then water use will basically be a non issue.
Now when you stated that Bio with hybrid battery storage was the ONLY answer you really lost credibility. First off bio is a steam plant and would be highly inefficient only running an hour a day. It would be almost impossible to find enough biomass for it to be our only solution. The worst part of your argument is your hybrid battery. If it really existed then it would be the perfect solution for wind and solar.

[solar_thermal]

Sorry my bad. The last post was in reply to jarreauterry.

[jennytalia]

Amen - there are a few too many idealists here who don't truly understand what it would take to implement new technologies (lead time for a new nuclear plant anyone?), or are basing their ideas on fabled technologies ("unicorn farts" as pointed out by "Random Walk" above).

I'm all for change, but anyone who believes we wouldn't have 10 times this fuss planning new nukes (did someone advocate "local nukes"?) seriously doesn't understand the NIMBY mindset.

[Lerianis3]

The 'lead time' for a new nuclear plant is only so 'bad' because of the NUMEROUS and OVER-REPETITIVE things that have to be done when trying to get approval for a new nuclear power plant. If we would cut out some of that repetition and streamline the process, we could have nuclear plants opening within 3 years after their design plans have been put in front of the EPA.

[William Crow]

One way or another, conservation is the key. Become more efficient. Reduce requirements.

[Lerianis3]

Conservation is ONE of the keys.... not the only one, and the fact is that many of the things that people are pushing for 'conservation'.... I damned well are not going to do, because they would infringe on the way that I live my daily life and make my life worse than it is right now, which is kinda hard to do since President Chimp (Bush) ruined this country.

[Lerianis3]

Conservation is ONE of the keys.... not the only one, and the fact is that many of the things that people are pushing for 'conservation'.... I damned well are not going to do, because they would infringe on the way that I live my daily life and make my life worse than it is right now, which is kinda hard to do since President Chimp (Bush) ruined this country.

[RE4ALL]

People find all kinds of reason to oppose , just to make it their business. A friend of mine told me that people in their country have now started suing their neighbors, who have installed wind turbines in their backyard, for stealing wind. Ridiculous and hilarious at the same time.

VR
http://blog.valopia.com

[baruchzed13]

Many americans seem to have a terminal entitlement complex. They feel entitled to have everything the way they want it. That's appropriate when you're 2 years old, then you grow up and realize that the world does not in fact revolve around you. Americans as a group need to make that big step into maturing beyond the impulses of a 2 year old.

[CorwinB]

While i disagree with the use of the word "all" in your comment I do agree that the all or nothing mentality is the problem here. Lack of compromise is not going to work here. Why sacrifice the air we breathe for 2% of a desert. They aren't even paving over the thing.

[Lerianis3]

We do not feel 'entitled to have everything the way that we want'. We feel entitled to have non-stifled lives, which is the total opposite of what the enviroloonies wish us to have. If the enviroloonies had their way, my once a year trip to Ocean City would be cut out. I wouldn't be able to use my gaming class computer ever. Etc. etc. etc.

Basically, they wish to send us back to the Stone Age or, at least, the 1700's in our way of living, and I am not going to stand for that because we do NOT, repeat, N O T need to do that.

I am all for 'compromise' and have put out some legitimate compromises.... but the enviroloonies will not support them in the slightest because it is 'all or nothing' with them.

[ferricoxide]

Simple solution to it all: global pandemic of a highly virulent and fatal disease. Less population equals less energy demand and the problems associated with meeting that demand.

[Lerianis3]

You going to release it? I would call that murder. Fact is, I was looking at swine flu as someone perhaps doing a 'test run' of that, to be totally honest, because we have a LOT of crazies who actually think that what you said would be a good thing.

The real fact is that we are not having ANY problems meeting energy demands. We have ways to meet the ******* demands.... the problem is that the NIMBY idiots will not allow these things to be built near their homes out of an unjust fear of the things in question.
Basically, it's time to STEAMROLLER over those NIMBY people and take the decision out of the hands of localities and put it into the hands of the Feds, who for all their faults, are more likely to look at something in a NEUTRAL LIGHT.

[cocobolo-sungod]

Thoroughly enjoyed all your comments here...some obviously from folks who don't much care how much of the planet we leave for the grandkids.
Why not listen to the native Indians? I mean, really, a handful of wind generators 5 miles away making some nice clean electricity to serve a huge area can't possibly be anywhere near as good as a bunch of ugly casinos sitting on the waterfront. Can it?