Stinking Liberal Hypocrit Alert!
Posted on 08/21/2003 4:30:02 PM PDT by Pikamax
Mass. Wind Farm Foes Face Legal Setback
Thursday August 21, 2003 10:59 AM
BOSTON (AP) - Opponents of a proposed power-generating wind farm in Nantucket Sound were dealt a legal setback when a federal judge ruled that the state had no authority to stop construction of a test tower currently operating there.
Opponents of the proposed $700 million wind farm had filed suit against the developers, claiming the company needed a state permit to build the 197-foot tower, which measures environmental conditions.
The tower, which has been operational since the spring, was built in federal waters more than three miles from shore. But the plaintiffs argued that because the state was granted control over Nantucket Sound fisheries more than two decades ago, a state permit was needed because of the potential harm to fisheries.
Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that nothing in the law ``supports the proposition that regulating non-fishing activities simply for the protection of fish falls under the Commonwealth's jurisdiction.''
Plaintiffs' attorney John W. Spillane said he would appeal.
The proposal calls for 130 wind turbines - each more than 420-feet high - about five miles off Cape Cod. The turbines would generate 420 megawatts of energy at peak times.
Supporters say the farm would supply nearly three-quarters of the electricity used on the cape and islands.
Opponents, including U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Walter Cronkite and historian David McCullough, say it would damage wildlife, destroy views and harm the fishing and boating industries.
They were pushing for a nuclear plant.
But seriously, this must've been designed and planned while Clinton was president if it's already constructed. I'm sure Teddy was consulted.
In the end it would just be cheaper to go kill the board of directors on the utility's board. It's what will happen anyhoo. Matbe Ted and Walter can spend the summers as cab drivers on Martha's Vineyard. Anyone supporting the wind farm they can just drown.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
Since when?
Stinking Liberal Hypocrit Alert!
$700 million for 420 MW peak supply???
Last year I posted an article about a gas-fired, 640-megawatt peaking plant that only cost $250 million. (Power plant planned)
And another thread (Plant fuels jobs surge in Fayette) documents a 630-megawatt, natural gas-fired plant built for $300 million.
Combined, the two plants cost $150 million less than the windfarm and generate at least 3 times more electricity.
Goes to show what a crappy idea windmills are. Even in supposedly "ideal" locations.
Opponents, including U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Walter Cronkite and historian David McCullough, say it would:a. damage wildlife,
b. destroy views and
c. harm the fishing and boating industries.
Guess which of these three negative outcomes is the true source of liberal angst...
But "alternative fuels" are just for the rest of us, Willie.
The liberal elite would like something a little more reliable for themselves. Not to mention cheaper...
And there's the reality of it. NIMBY!
Bozos.
Aren't the waters immediately around oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico the best places for fishing?
They are whining here in VT about wind generation, too. And the coal plants in the mid west. And VT Yankee [nuke plant]. And damns. And...
Well natural gas would certainly fit the bill for them.
I gotta admit, I don't particularly care for using natural gas for power generation either. There are far too many other uses for natural gas, and I'm afraid if we start relying on it too heavily for electricity as well, we'll just create a shortage and drive the price up for all the uses.
Makes more sense to me to use nuclear and clean coal technologies for central power generation. That way natural gas remains more abundant for distribution for home, commercial and industrial applications.
Goes to show what a crappy idea windmills are. Even in supposedly "ideal" locations.
Did your "analysis" include operating and maintenance costs, or only construction costs? Is there a "break-even" point sometime down the road, or does it show that one approach is always more expensive than the other?
About thirty years ago, I shared a row of airline seats with a veteran (and very high ranking) engineer from, as I recall, Babcock & Wilcox. There was talk of an "energy crisis" at the time, remember.
His take on the matter was crystal clear. Use fuel energy in the most efficient fashion -- meaning:
a. Use coal to raise steam.
b. Use nukes to generate electricity
c. Use petroleum products to power automobiles
d. Use natural gas for home heating and cooking.
Each would thus be employed to do what they do best. And there would be no "energy crisis", short-term, or for the foreseeable future.
In this equation, wind power and solar power would be used to power remote applications -- beyond the reach of utility lines. Solar power, by the way, is great for electric fences. And there are a lot of ranches up in the remote Davis Mountains of West Texas that employ windmills for household electricity.
One wonders why it is so very difficult for liberals to understand these rather fundamental matters.
I was just making a quick comparison of the construction costs.
Since windmills don't have to pay for fuel, they'd have an operating advantage in that respect. But I believe maintenance costs would be higher, simply because equivalent generating capacity would require significantly more generators spread out over a wider area. Large, centralized generating facilities are much easier to maintain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.