Stop Cape Wind! [Archive] - Fly Fishing Forum

: Stop Cape Wind!


juro
10-10-2010, 01:10 PM
Put the windmills on Otis instead! The air force base is 30 sq miles, one third larger than the area proposed on Horseshoe Shoals. The cost of building on water has increased to 2.5 BILLION and the energy produced over water is 50% more expensive for the public than land based wind power.

This is a private entrepreneurial project backed by Deval Patrick's political agenda.
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/articles/2010/10/10/cape_wind_backers_blew_right__by_cost/

I believe in clean power, but trashing the sound is not the answer. Sign every petition, make every vote to stop this plan. Put wind power on land where it belongs.

striblue
10-10-2010, 06:27 PM
Juro, I thought Otis was not in play anyway. That water was more plentiful than land on CC. Just an observation, not a comment.:confused: As to the effect on fishery? I ask what effect? btw. I simply don't know...I know the area is littered with hundreds of wrecks going back hundreds of years...that wreck fish and bridge pilling fishing is an art form in the Bahamas ,for example. So is it the fishery or the "view"? Just asking, what is the commercial guys position? sports fishermen? I know what landowners on the shoreline think, but they can afford to pay for any kind of energy...so they don"t care....just their "views", which I understand ,has been plainly stated by them.

juro
10-11-2010, 04:43 PM
Otis is 30 sq miles. The area on the sound is 23. The sound project is already up to 2.5 BILLION to build and we all know they'll never hit that. Building on land is significantly cheaper and is logistically simpler to maintain as these things break frequently. You don't even need a boat to repair one on land.

The project will RAISE electricity costs for consumers. Water-based raises the cost signifcantly more than land-based.

Cabling underwater is a serious matter.

Exactly right we don't know the impact - that's always the biggest risk. DDT, PCB to name a couple - we thought they were the miracle chemicals.

I am for clean power. But not when it has risks to the environment, raises electricity costs, and is a pet project for a private interest on our public resources.

Sign every petition and vote every vote to stop this exploitation of the sound!

nmbrowncom
10-12-2010, 05:44 AM
yeah, i agree. i'm all for wind power and other alternative energy-great ideas, but not in my back yard. now that's the american way-the same mindset that has led our great country got to energy independence, the benefits of which we have enjoyed for decades.

Wee Hooker
10-17-2010, 05:56 PM
I drive by two of the biggest windmills in RI every day. I don't find them ugly at all.

That said, I'd preffer to see a land based wind farm vs in the sound IF a) they can get the same wind velocity/consistency near Ottis. ( Not sure they can) b) there are no other significant technical /financial hurdles .

Fact is, Our boys are going to continue to die in the middle east as long as we all demand an oil based economy.

millerbrown
10-17-2010, 07:28 PM
Google is investing 5 billion for a massive undersea transmission cable that will hook up hundreds of proposed wind power sites in the mid Atlantic. All of this is going to happen and that is a very good thing!!

Cape Wind is the future!!

juro
10-17-2010, 07:42 PM
:confused:

The suggestion is not to avoid pursuit of wind power. It is to do it smartly. This venture will generate insignificant energy and raise energy costs, introduce unknown risks and lease habitat to private interests. Research the numbers before making a 'gut' judgement... energy gained, cost vs. land based, longevity of water based systems, maintenance of water based vs. land based, comparison to solar projects, benefactors of this project etc.

The suggestion is to make the pursuit of wind power cleaner, cheaper and smarter via land-based implementation on a massive land parcel that is larger than the ocean area by a third.

This private 'pet' project will not save lives in the middle east, nor will it make any significant impact. It will introduce more pollution than it saves.

Take a look at what Europe is doing with solar power in Africa. Now there's a project that will save lives and make an impact.

Cape wind is not the future. Smart, clean, renewable energy is the future.

striblue
10-17-2010, 11:17 PM
I am not disagreeing with you...and I am no expert on this subject... but don't all major changes start small... and "cape wind" may not be the future in and of it self but any alternative sourse must start somewhere. The only issue I have is what pollution are you talking about???? What is the strong aversion to this? Why is land better than water.... isn't land more scare fundamentally for the use of people....How is solar less "polution" than wind? I don't care about Africa... I care about us here. Africa is the middle ages with more corruption in government than all of Europe in it"s entire History.... the governments change every month... and lets not talk about the Sudan....so if solar energy is saving lives over there.... what do you mean? I think the poster who spoke of saving lives meant that we here in the US will not have to protcet our oil interests by sacrificing the men of our fighting force. I thought that was obvious.Now that we are talking about it..I am for it I guess... and and if we have to make some sacrifices for the greater good in the long run then that;s ok...since there is sacrifice on all great changes.... there has to be a war before a peace.... so this little pet project you describe, despite all the political issue you raise , is par for the course...nothing is easy...but Oil must go...one way or another....I need to know what is the pollution issue...maintanace? Electricity leakage? It will not effect the fish in my opinion or other sea life...life that has grerater adapatability than any on earth. What is the problem here.. I really don't like the Nantucketers coming of Nantaucket Golf Club jumping on the pollution issue when anyone really knows it the asthetic issue that they are concerned with. Anyway.. Look at the bigger picture in the long run is the final thing I want to say.

millerbrown
10-18-2010, 05:56 AM
Otis air Force Base was considered by CapeWind as a wind farm site but was rejected because it would produce appox. 50% of the energy of the proposed offshore site. A smaller (17 turbine) facility is now proposed for Otis.

Germany, the 3rd largest producer of wind power in the world, is expanding it's offshore wind farm capacity.

As I stated earlier, Google's mid Atlantic wind project will dwarf most land based wind facilities.

A wind turbine is cleaner than an oil well.

nmbrowncom
10-18-2010, 05:58 AM
like you stribule, i don't know the details of all the issues. but, the "not in my backyard"/aesthetic issue seems to be the real point.

juro
10-18-2010, 07:18 AM
Do your homework... a small percentage of US energy production is foreign oil (total foreign/domestic petroleum use for power is 40%) based but 97% of imported fuel for driving is foreign oil. If you want to reduce dependence on foreign oil, STOP DRIVING those big cars.

A good example of putting private interests first is the British Petroleum fiasco. That's our oil, but a foreign company - how f*cked up is our free enterprise system? Wake up - it's all about the Benjamins my friends and Cape Wind is no different.

When (and if) wind is contributing into the grid, traditional generators must be kept running because wind is unreliable 70% of the time. They can't be shut down and restarted everytime the wind changes. Baseload electricity will never come from wind. It can add power to the grid, but the impact and cost should be weighed vs. blindly and emotionally supported as seems to be the trend.

If Otis can produce 50% of the energy (which needs to be validated) it will do so at a mere fraction of the billions budgeted for the complex water-based plan, cost less to install and repair, and thus the return on investment will be far better. Do this twice, or a hundred times across the nation and then we're getting smart about it.

Taking only the pollution aspect, let's start with the first step - pouring the foundations into 23 square miles of soft, ever-changing sand on the shoals. NMB these are the shoals not far from where you caught that double-digit albie that nearly emptied your reel. Completely unstable. The effluent from the concrete pouring alone will introduce vast quantities of toxins.

I have seen an assessment on this impact and will locate and post. This is just the foundation, not to even talk about the 700 pounds of rare earth materials imported from China per unit, the unnecessarily complicated logistics, vibration noise over 23 square miles of the sound, impact of power transmission lines in the water, thousands of migratory birds killed, etc.

The same people who would never live near a power line seem to have no problem lining the sound with them in the path of the bi-annual migrations of fish and wildlife. And they would call themselves 'green' for doing it.

The absolutely most frightening thing about this project is not what we know can go wrong, but what we don't know, and as history proves that will inevitably occur once it's too late to avoid it. DDT, PCB, Love Canal, the gulf, the list goes on and on.

If you're going to rebut, put up some researched numbers and provide reliable sources. I will do same.

striblue
10-18-2010, 11:09 AM
Juro buddy...I can rebut with facts or feelings...I don't have the time to do the necessary research. But for one thing, those who know their Geology know that those shoals have firm foundations.... prior to the last ice age all that was above ground plain...then the ice retreated and the water filled in...but that's quibbling...You make this wind power sound as problematic as the oil problems. Also.. I will stop driving all those big cars WHEN then start making smaller ones. But, again, I don't know and frankly, I am puzzelled by such an aggressive position... I would like to hear THE OTHERSIDE as well. When you curse the capitalistic system to drive home a point on WHERE this wind should go it confuses me..... and all the claims of pollution< the DDT, etc...where does that come from?...the pouring of foundations??? How else do you build things? All I can say is that the efforts to stop our dependency on Oil will have problems...but the ultimate outcome in the long run is better than what we have now. That's my point...You just don't want in on the shoals...you want it on land.... well I wonder if you could have a more meaningful debate with some hunters or hikers (not mention the trout guys and river and lake fishermen )as they talk about the use of The woods and lands they use. I think they would make the same points you do.... so then we would come down to the simple issue which is ... where!!! Which is the point isn't it. If there is pollution on land then you would remain silent simply because it is not on the shoals.... then where do you really stand? I don't know myself...but many beleive that the vast oceans would be the best locations to harness this power....Juro, you started the thread.... you could not have expected all to be in agreement... and I will agree but I need to hear from the otherside and the pros to having it where they think it will work....not just the negative stuff...there must be a positive story too. Respectfully commenting,

juro
10-18-2010, 04:02 PM
A few points:

- As long as it remains an emotional issue, it will be as misguided as it is today in the so-called 'green' public's eye. Examination of the facts has quickly turned the most astute biologists and scientists away from supporting this - that is except for those on the Cape Wind payroll. A similar phenomenon was seen in the pacific northwest when the timber barons hired the best biologists to support logging old growth.

- Of course it's a matter of 'where' as well as how, and why. Wind power is very promising, if deployed correctly. Solar is even more promising, it is believed that 1% of the African desert can fuel the entire energy needs of Europe. A massive project is underway. Google it - this is the information age, it's not hard to do research anymore.

- The analogy with DDT, PCB, etc is that we humans believed that these were all great ideas, revolutionized our lives at the time. Later, when reality strikes, we're screwed.

PCB was the ultimate for transformer stability, CRT tube lining, pretty much all-purpose industrial synthetic... until it was found that it was a pervasive carcinogenic toxin that manifests itself in the food cycle to this day, it simply can not be eliminated.

People seem to think building windmills on sandy shoals is a great idea. Cape Wind may become a nightmare if we discover it has negative effects on the ecosystem, AFTER it's built. We already know it is a bad business decision due to cost and increases in electricity rates.

I hope this clarifies some of the questions posed.

juro
10-18-2010, 05:19 PM
or I should say, some of the opinions I possess :)

striblue
10-18-2010, 06:10 PM
Sounds like you have done your research...I have not and freely admit it...I guess I certainly have no answer.... I just want to see us move in the right direction...but at the same time I do not advocate "the ends justify the means"... so I do know we have wind in other locations on land AND water....I guess I am not as troubled by at as you are....until I know more I suppose.

Paxton
10-18-2010, 09:31 PM
No one needs to worry about it.....I believe that the concept of Cape Wind started at least 10 years ago.......studies, protests of ruining the environment, violation of religious traditions, politics, votes, bids etc. ...10 yrs and counting.

My grand-daughter is 16 mths old...my bet is that even she may not see Cape Wind or any other alternative energy pursuit in her lifetime.

Non dependence on foreign oil has been a priority for at least 3 presidents.....and we haven't done *&^%$#@!! yet.
This is the American way...talk progress, talk priority, even talk emergency.......by the time all the S _ _ _ is resolved...the idea is obsolete or it is too late.

Speak of land Juro....the public school system High School in the next town over from me wants to build a windmill (as in one) on top of one of the unused athletic field.......it took 2 yrs of fighting just to initiate the study....home owners 1/4 mile away (buffered by forest) agrued lost of home value, emotional distress cause by the blade movement, noise and best of all..."what if one of the blades fell off while students were using one of the other fields?"

IMHO, this country has lost the ability to work together to accomplish anything of value.
We have significant amounts of natural gas......oh....we can't use it in cars because we don't have the infrastructure...if we had the infrastructure...then there would be another argument. Opps, rear ended...boom!

The only progress we make is progress in preventing progress....and that is a fact.

In the history of our country, we have learned from successes and we have learned and prospered from mistakes.......however, we are now in the "age of inaction".
Frustrating!!!!
Ron
PS: if anyone is offended by this, please know in advance that I inadvertantly "mis-wrote". I also "mis-remembered" some opinions.

juro
10-18-2010, 10:18 PM
For renewable energy we don't pay enough attention to solar. The technology is due for a revolutionary advance perhaps as a result of new technologies arising (ref. 2010 Nobel Prize for Physics, nano technology), perhaps not. But a revolutionary advance in this technology could break the usage of the solar system's greatest energy source wide open.

There are worldwide initiatives that eclipse the potential of any / all wind, for instance Desertec...
"A solar dish farm 100 miles by 100 miles in the southwestern U.S. could provide as much electricity as is needed to power the entire United States."
US National Renewable Energy Lab, 2005

http://www.desertec-usa.org/

If we put panels on every rooftop in America we would likely have no dependence on foreign oil for electricity at all, given the above statistics.

The project in Africa has the potential to power all of EU.

Cape Wind is insignificant; meaningless in comparison. Not worth putting habitat at risk.

polareyez
10-19-2010, 04:55 AM
First off, Juro you sound like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. They kept railing against Bush not having an alternative energy plan. When Cape Wind was proposed they both said "not in my back yard." When it was brought up that the turbines would be offshore so no one would see them they still both complained because they go sailing there.

You mention concerns about pollution and the structures disrupting the fish. Fishermen in the Gulf head right to the oil platforms to fish because the platforms add structure, which draws fish. Oil drilling is not known for being pristine, yet the platforms draw fish.

When we started nuclear, opponents were concerned about the wildlife. I haven't caught any 3 headed stripers yet....

As for the vibrations from the turbines driving away the fish, if that was true the canal should be empty. With all the boat traffic, vibrations from the traffic going over the bridge, the lower bridge going up and down, trains using the lower bridge, no self respecting fish would set foot in the canal.

Solar? In Arizona maybe but, not in New England. You have to have steady sun for solar. We can go for a week without seeing the sun. That is not an option for us. How much is a solar farm of 100 miles by 100 miles in the southwest going to cost? Solar panels are expensive.

Why was BP drilling in our backyard? Because every time a US company tries to erect a new drilling platform they get hauled into court by environmentalists.

Bottom line, we have to start cutting our dependance on foreign oil. We have more than enough of our own, if allowed to go after it. Yes, we need alternative sources and they each have their advantages and drawbacks. We need to start somewhere and start now.

millerbrown
10-19-2010, 06:15 AM
Juro,

You fell overboard when you lumped Cape Wind in with DDT, PCB and the Love Canal! "700 lbs of rare earth material imported from China in each turbine structure" you say. There's 20lbs of rare earth materials imported from China in every Prius!!!

Let's face facts - most of your argument is a reheat of every "anti" argument that we've heard for the last ten years on this project. None of them hold water. If you want to get upset about something than get upset about the push for gas extraction in the Marcellus Shale formation. Now that's a REAL problem and it beats "tilting at windmills"in Nantucket Sound!!

striblue
10-19-2010, 06:50 AM
Putting solar panels on EVERY house? I don"t think the average homeowner can be able to afford that capital expenditure. Even with tax breaks. There was a big tax break to stimulate home buying and it made no dent. People can afford one or two airconditioners but how many put in central air?? When you said that it sounded great but not realistic and great in theory.... like mining the moon..Miller states what I was trying to say...where are the positive arguments... I really don't need to hear them in a way...because, I know something good when I see it. (PS. I know what John Kerry sounds like , I spent three years as his classmate in Law school.. he sounded the same then as he does now.)

"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come." Victor Hugo

juro
10-19-2010, 06:51 AM
More emotional (vs. quantified / qualified) replies, which is my complaint in the first place.

OK - let's break it down...


You mention concerns about pollution and the structures disrupting the fish. Fishermen in the Gulf head right to the oil platforms to fish because the platforms add structure, which draws fish. Oil drilling is not known for being pristine, yet the platforms draw fish.


That's funny... were you aware that the Cape Cod fisherman associations have joined to initiated a lawsuit to stop Cape Wind?

BTW oil platforms are not a good example to cite at the moment :Eyecrazy:


When we started nuclear, opponents were concerned about the wildlife. I haven't caught any 3 headed stripers yet....


Talk about a statement made out of context... for the third (fourth?) time wind power is promising, solar even more promising, provided it is done smartly, financially sensible and ecologically safe manner.

The debate is simply about whether the billions budgeted to put them on water is smart, and whether the ecosystem will be damaged.

While on topic, the problem with nuclear fission is that we create radioactive wastes that are currently sealed in concrete and stashed in permanent underwater storage until we figure out what to do with it since it has a half-life of millions of years. Unless you're France where you just dump it into the Atlantic.

Nuclear fusion would solve this, but we seem to be unable to achieve a viable generator without an army of Einsteins. It's perhaps the most promising solution yet the most elusive.

We do however have a fusion reaction going on every day - called the sun.


As for the vibrations from the turbines driving away the fish, if that was true the canal should be empty. With all the boat traffic, vibrations from the traffic going over the bridge, the lower bridge going up and down, trains using the lower bridge, no self respecting fish would set foot in the canal.


If you'd researched the noise / vibrations that are generated by these turbines we're not talking about a four-stroke buzz-by here, we're talking about 23 square miles of 45+ decibels in air, magnify that by the sonic properties of water, then add the sunken transmission lines, night and day and four seasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_acoustics

I think that might be a little less accommodating, just a hunch. Thankfully wind power only works part-time.


Solar? In Arizona maybe but, not in New England. You have to have steady sun for solar. We can go for a week without seeing the sun. That is not an option for us. How much is a solar farm of 100 miles by 100 miles in the southwest going to cost? Solar panels are expensive.


Exactly - the solar potential in the US southwest (note: domestic) is such that one 100x100sq mile farm could power the entire US power needs (US National Renewable Energy Lab, 2005) Our southwest rivals Africa and interior Australia for worldwide solar potential.

Desertec (http://www.desertec-usa.org/) is one of several companies turning away from problematic wind power to harness the greatest nuclear fusion reactor in our world. The EU is working with Africa to reap the potential there, scientists claim 1% of the area there can power the entire EU.

These are significant, worthwhile ventures with mind-boggling possibilities. We are lucky that our solar potential is within our own nation (unlike the EU).


Why was BP drilling in our backyard? Because every time a US company tries to erect a new drilling platform they get hauled into court by environmentalists.


Despite their best efforts, the oil giants still find a way around to screw the environmentalists... and the rest of us, not to mention the wildlife.


Bottom line, we have to start cutting our dependance on foreign oil. We have more than enough of our own, if allowed to go after it. Yes, we need alternative sources and they each have their advantages and drawbacks. We need to start somewhere and start now.


Again, to cut dependence on foreign oil Americans need to stop DRIVING. We are 97% dependent on foreign oil for powering our vehicles.

We are also the world's biggest energy glut, consuming more than any other country even those with larger populations.

Millerbrown, I was not aware that this argument had been ongoing for 10 years, I've barely been back here that long. I was out in the pacific northwest where hydro had nearly wiped out the greatest salmonid populations on earth.

As soon as I heard of this I was shocked that anyone would think it's a good idea, then I researched it's motives. Cape Wind will not liberate us from foreign oil, it will not save our boys in the middle east, it will only achieve one thing - make it's private investors rich.

Let me ask you then....
how much power will Cape Wind generate?
What is Cape Wind's impact on foreign oil dependency?
Will it lower our electric bills or raise them?

striblue
10-19-2010, 07:07 AM
Oh well, All enterprisies make someone rich....so what. That's the way it goes. Like the company you work for...so you don't need that to support your position. All the bad stuff you say about the wind pales in comparison to the problems with oil... and we just SAW that this year. My read on ALL of this is the simple fact that you don"t want it in the sound!!!!! If it were in the gulf this thread would not exist! You can not fool me. I now just scan your points and they come down to that simple fact. SOME SACRAFICES will be necessary.... and the sound issue is a small one. The oil infrastructure is so large that it will take baby steps to dismantle it... like little projects like the sound. little in comparison to what will be needed.... after everyone on this thread is dead and gone. A great history read to see the "trend" is the book LEVIATHAN< the history of whaling in America.

juro
10-19-2010, 07:17 AM
Not whats in my head but nice try :)

I have yet to hear anything but unquantified emotional arguments in this thread. That's fine, but the reason I can't swallow it is because I feel this is what the basis of support for the project is all about (aside from it's financial and political benefactors).

If just one person could produce evidence that it has a good return on investment, a scientific basis that it will not affect the ecosystem, statistics on how it will reduce dependency by X% or $$ in Y years from go-live, quotes on how it will lower electric bills, or do ANYTHING substantial I would stop trying to raise awareness on the topic.

This thread will remain in the database for posterity. I hope we never have to look back at it and see that it was a big mistake. I truly hope that I AM wrong.

striblue
10-19-2010, 07:27 AM
Well, I appreciate your passion...and do not find fault with passion.... but History will define this one day.... like the sacrafises in another context of the men who lost there lives ...say...during the Normandy Invasion... with countless logistic errors despite the planning...but the big picture of the ultimate defeat of Nazi Germany..was alway the view....that's the way I look at it..over and out. By the way...I will stand by the future... you want this to stay for posterity on the forum...you will be either looked at as a great visonary on the subject (among our small group)...or, I fear, one of the many, in history ,who threw road blocks because of lack of vision and stuck on minutia. The odds I think are against what you think will be the outcome.

Paxton
10-19-2010, 08:54 AM
Does anyone know of a Rehabilitation Facility somewhere in the U.S. that successfully treats people suffering from "unquantified emotional arguments" with secondary undocumented opinion issues?

I for one, have found that I often suffer from this malady whenever I reply to a thread with a different opinion and or observation.

Personally, I enjoy reading/hearing differing opinions be it on this subject or fishing techniques/strageties. Never have I thought that someone expressing a different point of view than mine was emotional and or uninformed....it was just their opinion and or observation and I respected it...even if I disagreed with it.

Without ideas and or novel or different thoughts, progress and learning suffers. If every new idea needed to be quantified prior to expressing it...there wouldn't ever be any new ideas.

Well...enough "energy'" spent.

polareyez
10-19-2010, 03:16 PM
Not too long ago didn't someone post pictures of their jeep they use to drive the beaches? Was it a hybrid or one of the regukar gas guzzling jeeps? I wonder...

I never heard of a private enterprise that operated non-profit. I'm willing to bet that "most" of us still work for a paycheck. Everything we own someone has profited from.

I can't think of anything else to say without getting overly emotional.

juro
10-19-2010, 04:30 PM
hahaha

Funny twists and turns. Interesting POVs all around. I defer to what the future holds.

Perhaps the words "emotional response" could have been replaced with "gut-feel", it's intended use was as an antonym of analytical. Not intended to portray any personality trait. Tough crowd :)


BTW - Garry, I never said I am impacting dependence on foreign oil. I claimed that Cape Wind will not. Obviously, as a jeep driver this is not a personal goal per se (although I drive very few miles). By pointing out that 97% of vehicle fuel is foreign I meant that advances in grid energy production will not change the lions share of our dependency.

Finally, I am hopeful and optimistic that DESERTEC worldwide will advance the renewable energy source with the huge solar potential we have in our southwestern US region. 100x100 sq miles can generate the energy for the entire nation. That is significant and much better for our fishing (as I see it anyway).

striblue
10-19-2010, 05:45 PM
Juro, I beleive you when you said "I believe in clean power, but trashing the sound is not the answer. Sign every petition, make every vote to stop this plan. Put wind power on land where it belongs."

I say... " I need more" before I join in on this.... and my gut says I already know what I need.:smile:

millerbrown
10-19-2010, 08:25 PM
Juro,

Yes, Cape Wind is ten years in the making and resistance to Cape Wind first formed in 2001. You should know that.

45% of Cape Cod's electrical supply is generated by burning bunker oil and natural gas. You should know that too. You should also know that TWO major oil spills have occurred in Cape waters in the last 30 years dealing with the delivery of this fuel. Cape Wind is designed to lessen that dependancy.

Your argument is shopworn. Even Ma. Audubon and Greenpeace thing otherwise and support Cape Wind!!

nmbrowncom
10-19-2010, 08:49 PM
while i generally support most any type of alternative energy to petrol irrespective of the drawbacks, which almost always pale in comparison to oil, juro's point about the location makes a lot of sense. surely there are less difficult places to put these wind mills-like on some of the vacant hills in nearby plymouth.

striblue
10-19-2010, 09:34 PM
Wait just a minute!!!!!! NOT in My backyard!!!! I thought Hingham would be much better. Keep the oil if it's in my backyard... Oil is ok...I mean...what the heck....:whoa: :wink:

juro
10-19-2010, 09:57 PM
I find it interesting that you posture me as if I support fossil fuels. I have not, nor do not during this discussion. According to Cape Cod Times, most of the electrical generation is natural gas (80%) and the balance oil (20%) which is #6 oil provided by barge from other sources, no idea what bunker oil is. It is also pointed out in other analyses that these plants could be shut down and power bought on the grid at lower price per KWH than produced at Sandwich.

My vote would be to shut down the Cape Cod fossil fuel plants entirely and simply purchase the energy off the grid which presents a savings to residents like me.

Again, I feel the most promising large scale renewable power direction is solar as detailed in the links I have provided above.

Juro,

Yes, Cape Wind is ten years in the making and resistance to Cape Wind first formed in 2001. You should know that.

45% of Cape Cod's electrical supply is generated by burning bunker oil and natural gas. You should know that too. You should also know that TWO major oil spills have occurred in Cape waters in the last 30 years dealing with the delivery of this fuel. Cape Wind is designed to lessen that dependancy.

Your argument is shopworn. Even Ma. Audubon and Greenpeace thing otherwise and support Cape Wind!!

polareyez
10-20-2010, 03:54 AM
FYI: When oil is distilled, it is heated to break down the hydrocarbons. As it's heated gasoline is siphoned off first, having the lightest atom structure. Then diesel and lubricating oil. Eventually, they get to bunker oil, which is burned in boilers on ships. Bunker oil must be heated to be pumped. It is literally the bottom of the barrel. The only oil that is thicker is used in asphalt.

millerbrown
10-20-2010, 07:00 AM
Juro,

You say that "most of the electrical generation is from natural gas (80%) and the rest is oil (20%)." Putting the extraction and transportation of these fuels aside wouldn't you consider it odd that the Pilgrim nuclear plant isn't in your mix? It provides electricity for appox. 7 -10% of Ma. households. One would think that the Cape would be a major recipient of that power.

nmbrowncom
10-20-2010, 05:03 PM
stribule,
we have far too much aristocracy and are much to sophisticated here in hingham to be bothered with the mere trifles of the masses. besides everyone knows that god wouldn't want such a blemish like windmills in hingham. how about deluxebury?

striblue
10-21-2010, 09:26 AM
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: There are too may blonds in Duxbury...I do have a little beenie with a little windmill on top.