The Massachusetts Audubon Society has given the wind farm a positive review, which just points out how much Kennedy and (to a lesser extent) Kerry have been playing the rich liberal NIMBY.  As someone who sweats each month opening the electric bill, I don't give a rat's ass about how the view from some multi-million dollar estates is affected (answer: not much).

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massach usetts/articles/2006/03/29/audubon_revie w_supports_wind_farm/

I know we're talking about wind here, but as the overall goal is renewable, clean energy, switchgrass hardly seems too far off topic. I live in VA-05, a district with a flailing and failing industrial and agricultural economy, craving some sort of injection of well-paying, long-lasting jobs. The south side of the district is perfect for growing switchgrass (some have already started) and yet two of our three congressional candidates still don't have a clue.

A couple years ago, Al Weed started a group called Public Policy Virginia to research switchgrass and its applications in rural Virginia. He's been talking about it for years now, and even after the president mentioned it in the SotU, he's still the only one who thinks it's a worthwhile endeavor. The other Democrat running for the nomination says it's not practical, not worthwhile, and the Republican incumbent (Virgil "MZM-Scandal" Goode, a.k.a. "Representative A") released an "comprehensive energy plan" with absolutely no mention of switchgrass.

It's so frustrating to see what is obviously a win-win, politically and economically, get ignored and passed over time and time again. We are supporting terrorism with every gallon of gas we buy and I'm tired of it. We could take our $50B oil deficit and inject it right back into our own agricultural communities. It'd be like the new New Deal, and we could rid ourselves of our dependence on foreign energy. Al wants to lead, the other two should get the hell out of the way.

I have a hard time understanding the NIMBY backlash here.  The turbines will be 13 miles offshore at their closest point to land.  They are 20 feet in diameter.  It takes a pretty clear day, and pretty keen eyesight to see a 20 foot object at 13 miles.  The moving blades would be invisible from that distance.  Heck, the curvature of the earth is going to hide a good percentage of the base anyway...

the windfarm is a burn for the residents here. let's put in the grand canyon, why not? they have lots of wind there, too. while it seems like a 'no-brainer' to some, others look a little deeper. why should we industrialize nantucket sound for such a marginal gain? the main reason they're for it is that it turns the millionaire backers into mega-millionaires overnight, but the rest of us have to have the commons converted into moneymaking for the already rich. let's put them on the top of the great smoky mountains, why not? there's wind there too.or how about putting them in central park? just jack them up high enough to catch the wind. i suppose conservation is out of the question? no, we need more and more power so we can keep our lights on all night. don't be jumping to conclusions that just because this is posited as an 'alternative' project that anybody who is opposed to it is a hypocrite

Great post. However, let me correct the record a little bit, as you give the NIMBY's too much credit. First, Walter Cronkite originally opposed the project, but very publically changed his position after he learned more about it. And, opponents are not the Cape's environmentalists, as far as I can see (and I'm one mile from Nantucket Sound), but a cabal of very wealthy individuals who have ponied up millions of dollars for lobbying fees. Environmentalists -- and I count myself as one -- are pretty much in favor of the Cape Wind project.

Lot's of questions here about this project. That's as it should be. I personally favor wind power in general but don't know enough about this specific project to voice an opinion.

I do know one thing.

If you think the fat-assed, multi-millionaire Ted Kennedy is in any war, shape or form different from his ReThug colleagues in the Senate....you bin drinkin' the Kool-Aid and need to take the cure.

Until we rid ourselves of the parasite class of politicians who are always serving single-interest groups, such as the rich, we are not going to solve the problems we face as a nation.

Crash the Gate and get rid of Kennedy and his ilk.

I'd be a lot more enthused about parking wind turbines in scenic areas if we were doing everything else we could as a society to conserve energy.  But we are behaving like a bunch of drunken frat boys on Saturday night--  building massive McMansions which need to be heated and cooled, driving Hummers, and generally using fossil fuels like there is no tomorrow.  Although I'm enthusiastic about renewable energy sources like wind power,  we could save a lot more energy and do it a lot sooner by using less.  Approaching energy issues from the supply end is what we have always done, and therein lies the problem.

Republican Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma has also proposed DRILLING in Massachusetts, and I believe this is retribution for decades of opposition to the energy policy of Stevens and his coterie.  While I am not opposed to the windfarm off of Nantucket Sound, I do believe the residents of that area, and especially those who own property in that beautiful area, have a right to voice concerns and complaints.  And Ted Kennedy has the right to lead by representing these constituents' concerns.  The Republicans always invoke Massachusetts and their opposition to the windfarm whenever their proposals are blocked.  They tried to do the same to Olympia Snowe when she and Susan Collins proposed their bill for subsidizing winter heating bills in Maine.  And in fact, Mary Landrieu asked Olympia Snowe during the debate if offshore drilling would alleviate the problem, tacitly asking Snowe to apologize for opposing that proposal in last year's Energy Bill.
The real culprit in wind energy legislation is Lamar Alexander and Lisa Murkowski, who lead opposition on the Senate floor last year to wind turbine installation.  They are the one's who claims it obstructs the environment by cluttering the horizon with metallic, geometric forms.  And if we are truly concerned with it, why not install large farms in North Dakota, which is the most windy state in the union.  Conrad and Dorgan have already stated their support for this project, as it would bring jobs to their state, and the residents of North Dakota are already enthusiastic about the two turbines already operating in their state.
Their are many rural areas in the Midwest, and in the Upper Midwest in particular, that could install such wind farms without affecting property rates.  Regarding Nantucket, this is expensive property, and the area is a national treasure.  I would rather have these farms installed in economically depressed states that can benefit from the surplus energy and from the jobs such windfarms would produce.  Why not focus on states that desire such farms?  Why not focus on North Dakota?  And why continue the battering of Kennedy?  Is it not clear that this is once again the oilmen's attempt to invalidate the innovative energy stance of the Northeast?  And is it not clear that it is the oil lobby and not necessarily the Republican party that is orchestrating this invalidation of Kennedy's stance?

Can't we build these towers out of a material that possibly could be translucent or, if not, paint them, at least on the "scenic side" in colors that would blend into the surrounding environment? You could put the same kind of strobe light on top that's used for radio transmitter or radar towers, couldn't you?

simulated photos. Go to bottom and you can see the view from 13 miles away. http://www.capewind.org/modules.php?op=m odload&name=Sections&file=index& amp;req=viewarticle&artid=9 As I commented before, not much to see from 13 miles away

The real hypocrite is Bobby Kennedy Jr. who is an environmental lawyer after all.

The Scandinavians are having a good laugh at this story. They have many off shore windmills and the world didn't come to an end. (Neither did the scenic view).

I agree that the opposition here is lamentable.  The Kennedys in particular need to get out of the way here.  This is the most absurd nimby action I have ever seen.

Using the "it's an eyesore" arguement to deep six wind power in the cape area is almost as bad as the arguement from nature lovers that turbines kill birds. If gulls (i.e. flying sea rat) get chopped up, consider it an off-shore, bird-flavored fish feeder.

No, but it means you need to be skeptical about information that was created by biased sources.  Here, there and everywhere.

KTX1 KTX2 KTX3 KTX4 KTX5 KTX6 KTX7 KTX8 KTX9 KTX10 KTX11 KTX12 KTX13 KTX14 KTX15 KTX16 KTX17 KTX18 KTX19 KTX20 KTX21 KTX22 KTX23 KTX24 KTX25 KTX26 KTX27 KTX28 KTX29 KTX30 KTX31 KTX32 KTX33 KTX34 KTX35 KTX36 KTX37 KTX38 KTX39 KTX40 KTX41 KTX42 KTX43 KTX44 KTX45 KTX46 KTX47 KTX48 KTX49 KTX50 KTX51 KTX52 KTX53 KTX54 KTX55 KTX56 KTX57 KTX58 KTX59 KTX60 KTX61 KTX62 KTX63 KTX64 KTX65 KTX66 KTX67 KTX68 KTX69 KTX70 KTX71 KTX72 KTX73 KTX74 KTX75 KTX76 KTX77 KTX78 KTX79 KTX80 KTX81 KTX82 KTX83 KTX84 KTX85 KTX86 KTX87 KTX88 KTX89 KTX90 KTX91 KTX92 KTX93 KTX94 KTX95