backtop


Print 97 comment(s) - last by Danger D.. on May 3 at 3:45 PM


Protesters -- Native Americans and environmentalists -- have vowed to sue to try to stop the project after its government approval.   (Source: AP Photo/Julia Cumes)

Cape Wind will provide 468 MW of power at peak capacity. It will be fully operational by 2025 and will look somewhat like this plant -- the Nysted offshore wind farm off the coast of Denmark in the Baltic Sea   (Source: Cape Wind)

  (Source: Boston.com)
Much like with nuclear power environmental advocates find deaf ears in the Obama administration

While no wind resource can be viewed as continuous, off-shore wind tends to be more steady and stronger than land-based wind.  For that reason, off-shore wind is viewed as a very promising form of alternative energy.

It is also controversial.  Property owners hate for their water-front views to be marred by massive, spinning turbines.  Some criticize the wind-farms as too expensive compared to traditional fossil fuel power.  And some environmentalists complain that the farms disrupt shallow-water wildlife.

Despite a concerted effort by environmentalists and the Mashpee Wampanoag and Aquinnah Native American tribes, the federal government has approved the nation's first offshore wind farm.  Much like with the recent nuclear power debate, the pleas of environmental advocates fell on deaf ears with the Obama administration.  Yesterday, the farm was given the go-ahead by U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

At a joint State House news conference with Mass. Governor Deval Patrick, Salazar remarked, "This will be the first of many projects up and down the Atlantic coast.  I am convinced there is a path we can take forward that both honors our responsibility to protect historical and cultural resources and at the same time meets the need to repower our economy with clean energy produced from wind power."

Patrick chimed in, "America needs offshore wind power and with this project, Massachusetts will lead the nation."

The new farm will be built in the Nantucket Sound called Horseshoe Shoal .  It will consist of 130 turbines, each measuring 258-feet tall and producing up to 3.6 megawatts of power.  The total capacity will be approximately 468 megawatts at peak, with an average output of around 170 megawatts.

It is being constructed by Energy Management Inc. (EMI). EMI is a Massachusetts-based energy company.  An independent analyst firm Charles River Associates examined the project as says that it will likely cost $1B USD to $2B USD, but will be able to provide up to $185M USD yearly in power savings.

The government is helping EMI recoup the massive up front investment a bit faster with renewable energy tax credits available to consumers to discount the wind power.  The government will also be offering up $10M USD to help mitigate the impact the plant on local wildlife and on the Native American relics buried in the Shoal.  Still, the project is more independent from taxpayer funding than most.

Mass. Senator John F. Kerry, a former Democratic presidential candidate, cheered the news, stating, "I believe the future of wind power in the Massachusetts and the United States will be stronger knowing that the process was exhaustive, and that it was allowed to work and wind its way through the vetting at all levels with public input.  This is jobs and clean energy for Massachusetts."

The project is expected to provide 1,000 construction jobs over the next few years and create 150 permanent jobs.  It is expected to provide 20 percent of Massachusetts' electricity by 2025 and save over 5 million tons of carbon yearly.

Still the project faces a bit of a fight ahead.  The Native American and environmentalist groups who opposed the project have vowed to ban together and file lawsuits to try to derail the project.

States Audra Parker, president and chief executive of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, "While the Obama Administration today dealt a blow to all of us who care deeply about preserving our most precious natural treasures – this fight is not over.  Litigation remains the option of last resort. However, when the federal government is intent on trampling the rights of Native Americans and the people of Cape Cod, we must act."

Pat Parenteau, who teaches at Vermont Law School, says that the groups are unlikely to be able to obtain an injunction using federal laws like the Endangered Species Act and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.  The best they can do, he believes, is to delay the project's construction by a couple of years.

There are pending off-shore wind projects in Texas and Delaware, as well.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

What a bunch of idiots...
By iFX on 4/29/2010 10:18:47 AM , Rating: 5
... these freak show environazis cry and scream over coal (justified) and nuclear (unjustified) so finally they get what they want, clean and renewable energy and what do they do? They f*cking cry some more and threaten to SUE!? Are you f*cking kidding me?

Seriously, these people need to take a long walk off a short cliff.




RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By MrBlastman on 4/29/2010 10:23:45 AM , Rating: 3
I kind of like the idea of having wind farms out at sea. Seriously, when you think about it, there is one serious benefit these environmentalists are looking over:

Many boats are white.
Many boats get dirty and ugly looking.
Seagulls and Pelicans are busy hunting for fish and need to poop sometimes.
Seagull and Pelican poop is white.
These wind farms can allow the birds to poop and then chop the poop up into a fine mist allowing it to coat the ships, giving them a free paint job!

I don't see the problem. It is an environmentally-friendly, natural paint job, 100% lead free.

Geeze, what's the problem here?


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Anoxanmore on 4/29/2010 11:07:53 AM , Rating: 4
A new color is born, Seagull Sediment. :)


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By quiksilvr on 4/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By mcnabney on 4/29/2010 12:08:35 PM , Rating: 5
Sailboats can navigate right through the farm. The spacing is pretty significant and the rotors are far too high to worry about. Just like sailing around buoys.

Now large oceangoing vessels will need to avoid them, but since they are constructing these on a shoal they shouldn't be going there in the first place.

As an environmentalist I am all in favor of this. I like nuclear too, especially when using modern reactor designs and an actual willingness to use Yucca.

I am sorry that we don't have a magic wand to give us unlimited power without any inconvenience. The thought of a ~$1.5B investment providing a fifth of Massachussetes power is very appealing. Especially since the operating / maintaining cost is neglible. Now upgrading the power grid......that is another story altogether.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Solandri on 4/29/2010 3:09:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
As an environmentalist I am all in favor of this. I like nuclear too, especially when using modern reactor designs and an actual willingness to use Yucca.

I am sorry that we don't have a magic wand to give us unlimited power without any inconvenience.

Yeah, I consider myself an environmentalist too. I think one has to draw a distinction between environmentalist type A (someone who wants to preserve some of the world's natural beauty for future generations, and to prohibit stupid exploitation with little or no regard for the long-term consequences), and type B (someone who thinks the world would be better off if people disappeared from the face of the earth). I like nuclear. And I think we should do wind projects like this if for no reason than to see the real-world practicality and costs once it's in operation.

quote:
The thought of a ~$1.5B investment providing a fifth of Massachussetes power is very appealing. Especially since the operating / maintaining cost is neglible.

According to the article, average output is 170 MW. New England uses less electricity per residence than the U.S. average, about 650 kWh / month. That's not evenly distributed through the day, but to favor the wind farm let's pretend it is. That works out to an average energy draw of 890 W per household. So 170 MW would be enough for 191,000 households. Figure 2.5 people per household and that works out to 477,000 people, which is only about 7% of Massachusetts' population.

Add in industrial electricity use and the fact that energy use is not constant throughout the day, and I'd be very surprised if this provided even 3% of Massachusetts' electricity needs. I'm not sure where you got the 1/5th figure, but I think it's safe to say that it's marketing propaganda.

Also, anyone who has operated anything in the ocean will tell you that the operation and maintenance costs will most definitely not be negligible. The ocean is just about the harshest environment you can operate in.

http://www.utilipoint.com/issuealert/print.asp?id=...


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By JediJeb on 4/29/2010 5:40:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is expected to provide 20 percent of Massachusetts' electricity by 2025 and save over 5 million tons of carbon yearly.


I think this quote from the article is where he got the 1/5 from.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By FITCamaro on 4/29/2010 11:32:45 PM , Rating: 4
I consider myself an environmentalist too. All the gas I burn in my 6L V8 produces CO2 to feed plants.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Kurz on 4/30/2010 10:54:22 AM , Rating: 2
Hey now... there are other things that are actual polutants coming from the tail pipe.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By AssBall on 4/30/2010 10:14:43 AM , Rating: 1
It is expected to provide 20 percent of Massachusetts' electricity by 2025 and save over 5 million tons of carbon yearly.

Maybe they should use "lied about, hoped for, prayed to..." instead of "expected" to.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Keeir on 4/30/2010 4:46:01 PM , Rating: 2
And even at 170 MW average, it will have a very high utility factor for wind power.

Even running a full tilt, 24 hours a day, 356 days a year brings a yearly total of only ~ 4x10^9 kWh produced per year. Given the typical line losses of the US power grid, thats roughly 3.7 x 10^9 kWh produced per year. Even running with your 7.8 x 10^3 kWh figure (its important to note that NE homes typically use significantly more energy than average, just that energy comes in multiple forms. Its a lot different looking at a NG heated home in NE versus an Airconditioned home in Texas. The Texas home may use more electricity, but the NE home more total energy.... the DOE estimates only 25% of energy use in Residental NE is due to electricity where-as in South West Cental region electricity is around 66% of residental engery usage), we still barely hit around 18.9% of households... The DOE also estimates that in New England, the residental section consumes just 37% of total electricity between commerical and industrial.

Roughly speaking, even if the windmills were built today and ran 24x7, they would provide only ~7% of Mass. Electrical Energy. Potential mass might believe that Electric demand will fall by ~60% by 2025?


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By sleepeeg3 on 4/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Yucker54 on 4/29/2010 10:29:10 AM , Rating: 3
I personally would much rather have this money invested in the nuclear energy...but why would anyone want to research/build/go for options that make more sense?


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By barjebus on 4/29/2010 11:26:08 AM , Rating: 1
Assuming 36% efficiency (according to the article), and assuming a nuclear plant of 2 gigawatts achieves 90% uptime/efficiency, and assuming we're extremely generous and assume the plant will come in at the lower cost of 1 billion instead of 2 billion dollars:

2,000 mW / 170 = 11.76
11.76 * 1 billion dollars: 11.76 billion dollars to build an equivalent nuclear plant that provides stable, base load power.

Where I live we were recently planning on building a 2 gigawatt nuclear plant (in Canada) and the estimated cost was 6 billion. So that means that even if the plant construction costs were to DOUBLE, it would cost the same as this wind plant on a per megawatt basis, AND the wind plant still wouldn't be able to provide stable baseload. On top of that the number of people required to run a nuclear plant sounds similar to how many would be required to supervise and maintain an equally sized wind farm, as the article states that this site alone will employ 150 people permanently...so does that mean for 2 gigawatts of wind power, it would employ 1500 people???

Ridiculous. Why doesn't the government just set big chests of tax payer dollars on fire to appease the enviro's hmm? The tax payers are the ones paying for this, dont' you forget....who would be willing to pay double for their electricity?? The government will subsidize this project for years to come ensuring the projects owners become very rich men.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Yucker54 on 4/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By mcnabney on 4/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By softbatch on 4/29/2010 1:04:30 PM , Rating: 3
Another fine example of a bad idea needing a massive amount of tax payer money to be commercially viable.

There Fixed


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By mcnabney on 4/29/2010 1:21:45 PM , Rating: 2
It is actually a very good idea. But only if there are significant production facilities, guaranteed demand, and ideally more than one producer.

It really isn't all that different from mining a resource and shipping it a thousand miles. The rail infrastructure already exists, but the power lines don't.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By mcnabney on 4/29/2010 12:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
You don't really understand the industry. That $6B reactor is going to employ at least a thousand people directly and many more indirectly. Nuclear requires massive security, occupied land (wind farms are in active fields, boats and fish sail past turbines in the ocean), expensive fuel, many highly paid technicians, and massive oversight/expense. There is a nice wind farm in western Kansas that I drive by often. It has 155 turbines that are maintained by a team of 23 full and part-time employees. It generates between 200 and 300MW. The operating/maintenance costs of wind are a speck compared to nuclear. They cost a bit more to build per watt, but will pay for their contruction within a decade and are hugely profitable after that.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Starcub on 4/29/2010 12:46:50 PM , Rating: 2
I was wondering if he was only looking at construction costs, if so then it seems that alternatives might be in order. Even if Canada doesn't have the political hurdles in that nuclear faces in the US, fuel, operation and maintenance, and waste and decommisioning costs will still be significantly greater than capital costs. While capital cost might be higher with most clean renewables, those other costs are usually far lower.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By mcnabney on 4/29/2010 1:25:55 PM , Rating: 1
Wind turbines also have the benefit of being almost 100% recyclable - so a great deal of their cost (steel and copper) will be reused when the device is retired.

And wind's contruction is favorable to nuclear. The advantage of nuclear is that they can be built near cities while wind should really only go where there it is most efficient.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Solandri on 4/29/2010 3:48:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You don't really understand the industry. That $6B reactor is going to employ at least a thousand people directly and many more indirectly. Nuclear requires massive security, occupied land (wind farms are in active fields, boats and fish sail past turbines in the ocean), expensive fuel, many highly paid technicians, and massive oversight/expense. There is a nice wind farm in western Kansas that I drive by often. It has 155 turbines that are maintained by a team of 23 full and part-time employees. It generates between 200 and 300MW. The operating/maintenance costs of wind are a speck compared to nuclear.

I'm not sure where you're getting you're figures from.
http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2005/ElecCo...

Globally, nuclear's operation and maintenance costs work out to less than $10 per MWh, less than 1 cent per kWh (vs. an average retail electricity cost of 11 cents per kWh). (Figs 3.8, 3.9, 3.10) Total generation costs for nuclear including construction, O&M, and fuel are about $30-$55 per MWh (3-5.5 cents per kWh).

Wind's O&M costs are lower, but not by much. About $5-$10 per MWh. The initial investment cost is a lot higher than for nuclear, pushing overall costs to about $40-$70 per MWh. (Figs 4.3, 4.4. Note that the U.S. estimated costs for wind are lower because the U.S. amortizes wind farm equipment over an estimated lifetime of 40 years. The rest of the world uses 20 or 25 years.)

This may not seem to make a lot of sense considering what a major undertaking it is to construct a nuclear power plant. But you have to keep in mind that nuclear produces an enormous amount of energy for the volume of materials used. That $6 billion nuclear reactor is putting out 1000 MW of average output. It can do this 24 hours a day if needed. The 250 MW capacity you cite for the Kansas wind farm is the peak output. If you use the same ratio of peak to average as for the Cape Cod project, those 155 turbines are only putting out 91 MW average. To equal the average output of the $6B reactor, you'd need 1700 turbines and a corresponding increase in the amount of space and number of employees.

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

I should also point out that contrary to most people's expectations, wind is also more dangerous than nuclear. There have already been about a dozen deaths in the U.S. associated with wind power despite its minuscule contribution to the country's electricity generation. Nuclear provides about 20% of our electricity and has had zero fatalities in ~50 years of commercial electricity production. This is one statistic where nuclear's over-regulation helps.

http://www.wind-works.org/articles/BreathLife.html

The wind power industry is young and I'm sure costs will drop and safety improve as we learn more about utilizing it. But don't try to sugar-coat it just because you like wind and dislike nuclear. It still has a lot of development and efficiency goals to reach before it'll be cheaper than nuclear. And given its intermittent nature, I doubt it'll ever contribute >25% of our electricity. Primary power generation has to come from another more reliable source, and right now it looks like nuclear is the top contender for that role.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By FITCamaro on 4/29/2010 11:39:34 PM , Rating: 2
I'd like to know how much of the expense of building a nuclear plant is caused by the red tape of trying to build one.

Very good post though. I don't want my power only to work on windy days. Wind will never be stable. Solar will never be stable. Nuclear is and it leads to fusion. And it doesn't need government subsidies to be cheap for the consumer. Probably why libs hate it so much.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By AssBall on 4/30/2010 10:21:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And it doesn't need government subsidies to be cheap for the consumer.


It needs expensive regulation and lots of misinformation to be expensive for the consumer. :/


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By RamarC on 4/29/2010 4:03:54 PM , Rating: 2
progress energy has two nukes in the planning stage for florida. the estimated cost is $15B and rising and construction won't even begin until 2015. they may go online in 2020. so comparatively speaking, a $1B wind farm isn't really that expensive.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Keeir on 4/30/2010 6:35:24 PM , Rating: 2
Not be snide, but I think you missed alot of the point.

The Florida installation will be 2, 1,000+ NW reactors. Actual build cost is estimated ~7.65 billion. The remaining balance in the land, certification works, and -interest- from spending large amount of upfrount money on loans. A situation made worse by the NRCs decision to ensure that even excavation can not begin until the entire project undergoes years worth of government review.

Likley the 1-2 billion figure mentioned is -just- the build cost associated with the wind mill farm project, and not the -total- cost which would be incurred by an enitrely private entity attempting to build on pre-purchased land.

Disregarding that, a wind farm would need to be 11x larger than the one proposed to match the output of the Levy Nuclear Plant. 11 billion to 22 billion doesn't sound that cheery anymore. (Just to note, based on .15 cents per kWh used when estimating the return for the Wind Farm, the Nuclear Plant would generate ~2.6 billion dollars of electricity a year)


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By niaaa on 4/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By JediJeb on 4/30/10, Rating: 0
RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By EJ257 on 4/29/2010 10:43:55 AM , Rating: 2
I have the perfect solution. If these econuts don't like a clean, non-polluting off shore wind farm then they can all go and run on giant hamster wheels and generate their own f@$*ing electricity. Welcome to the USA, we have assorted nuts.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By mcnabney on 4/29/2010 12:23:35 PM , Rating: 2
It wouldn't be the USA without them.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By jillisgreen on 4/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Anoxanmore on 4/29/2010 11:28:27 AM , Rating: 4
Jill you aren't very well versed in how much your current power plant has killed wildlife then.

quote:

The second occurred in April 2003, when a Bouchard Company barge carrying oil for the Mirant Canal Generating Plant ran aground spilling 98,000 gallons of oil, which killed 450 birds and shut down 100,000 acres (400 km²) of shell fishing beds.


A single spill from your NOW current oil power plant, congrats on being dense.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By jillisgreen on 4/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By MrBlastman on 4/29/2010 11:40:26 AM , Rating: 2
Energy efficient light bulbs contain mercury--the same mercury that can seep into the water supply and poison people. Oh wait, I'm sorry, hippies are about population control so poisoning the water supply would be a good thing. Save the animals and down with the people!

Energy Star approved a gas-powered alarm clock. Need I say more?

Cutting back on the use of electronics and power will only slow human progress. The faster we can advance to the next step, the better.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Motamid on 4/29/2010 1:26:38 PM , Rating: 2
Actually when you consider the entire lifespan of a fluorescent light vs. an incandescent bulb, less mercury is released into the environment. Even if the fluorescent bulb is not recycled and all of the mercury inside is released, the amount of energy saved over it's lifetime translates into less mercury released by coal burning plants. Because the majority of our electricity is generated by coal, the energy consumed by an incandescent bulb will result in more mercury being released into the environment than a fluorescent bulb. You can check out the following source:

http://www.iaeel.org/IAEEL/archive/Right_Light_Pro...

Ideally no mercury will be used in the production of efficient lighting which in the near future will probably shift towards solid state lighting such as LEDs and OLEDs. However, mercury will still be released if coal continues to be our main source for electricity generation.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By JediJeb on 4/29/2010 5:59:56 PM , Rating: 2
Also the amount of mercury released into the environment by the florescent bulbs would never raise the levels above the background levels already present. In the lab here we found you have to purchase distilled water when doing trace mercury analysis because the tap water has too much mercury to even be removed by ultra pure water filtration systems. Tap water runs around 1 part per trillion mercury, yet the detection limit for waste waters is set at 0.5 parts per trillion. What we discovered was that tap water is considered safe at those levels, but is considered hazardous by waste water standards, go figure.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Anoxanmore on 4/29/2010 11:49:47 AM , Rating: 3
I see no reason to, when I flip a switch I have power, there are no brownouts here.

If I choose to use more power, I pay for it, that is why I have an electric bill meter.

Time to get off the crazy lists dear, and realize that the way to solve power issues is Nuclear.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By phxfreddy on 4/29/2010 12:06:51 PM , Rating: 2
Jill try to take what I am going to say in an objective non personal way.

When I see thinking like yours I think to myself people are just too lazy to learn anything. Your rainbow and unicorns view is nice but you better be very good looking to get by in life. It would never work for a guy. We generally do not find mates that pay the bills for us.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2010 11:37:30 AM , Rating: 1
OH my god, 450 birds !! The horror !! The absolute atrocity!!!!!!


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Anoxanmore on 4/29/2010 11:48:19 AM , Rating: 2
Actually Reclaimer, the 100,000 acres isn't good since that is most of the Cape fishing area.

Granted the birds were kind of a secondary thing. I'm personally not a fan of eating oil covered fish, are you?

Don't answer that...


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By geddarkstorm on 4/29/2010 12:37:46 PM , Rating: 2
<oblivious> But isn't fish oil good for you...? </oblivious>


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By MrBlastman on 4/29/2010 12:59:20 PM , Rating: 2
Oiled up Salmon can sometimes be quite slippery...


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Anoxanmore on 4/29/2010 3:20:51 PM , Rating: 2
O.o

The "other" pink meat? ;)


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By MrBlastman on 4/29/2010 10:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
:P


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2010 3:38:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm personally not a fan of eating oil covered fish, are you?


Well see a funny thing happens when you dump a small amount of a liquid into trillions of gallons of highly salty ocean water....

Every oil spill we're treated to doom and gloom predictions of it's effect on wildlife. And every time that effect is highly localized and minimal in reality.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Steele on 4/29/2010 5:02:35 PM , Rating: 2
Read about the Exxon Valdez spill. Then talk about "localized and minimal..."

I'm not advocating shutting down oil production or anything of the sort, but let's be honest about it: it can be a dirty business.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2010 5:48:27 PM , Rating: 2
Come now don't cherry pick. Exxon Valdez was a worst case scenario brought to life. You could not have PICKED a worse place to have a spill.

quote:
but let's be honest about it: it can be a dirty business.


Oh absolutely. Most things worth it are. But mother nature can also be, and often is, just as destructive. Volcano's, natural gas eruptions under the ocean, etc etc.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By thurston on 4/29/2010 9:48:41 PM , Rating: 2
How about this one, is it good enough for you?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100429/ts_alt_afp/us...


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By room200 on 4/30/2010 6:44:13 PM , Rating: 2
Drill Baby, Drill!!


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Danger D on 5/3/2010 3:39:13 PM , Rating: 3
There have been seven worse oil spill since Exxon Valdez.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Danger D on 5/3/2010 3:45:03 PM , Rating: 3
I lied. Four, six if you count stuff inland. Plus what's happening now.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001451.html


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By AssBall on 4/30/2010 10:44:32 AM , Rating: 2
Sure the Valdez spill was a disaster, but most of the scientific people there agree that it recovered magnificently compared to the general expectations of the time. More than 11,000 people were involved in cleaning it up, and a hell of alot of useful data and ecological understanding was gathered during the process. An oiled otter picture sure did made alot of money for CNN and Green Peace, though.

It was a regrettable accident that we learned quite a bit about from. But hey, negativity sells better than science, right?


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By room200 on 4/30/2010 6:47:08 PM , Rating: 2
Well, in this current oil spill, we may not have an oily otter. What about photographs of the men who died on this oil rig? Dead people don't recover.


By monkeyman1140 on 5/3/2010 7:08:42 AM , Rating: 2
How many other platforms out there don't have that 2nd safety valve?

Scary thought.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Danger D on 5/3/2010 3:45:40 PM , Rating: 3
It hasn't recovered yet. There's still oil there.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By MrBlastman on 4/29/2010 11:37:41 AM , Rating: 2
Jill, you are turning green and moldy. Perhaps we should just stick you in a bioreactor and turn you into ethanol so we can burn you off. ;)

20% of the states power. 20%! That is significant.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By jimhsu on 4/29/2010 1:25:36 PM , Rating: 2
Butanol is more energy dense and less hygroscopic.

< Head is exploding due to amount of research currently doing now on bioengineering for biofuels.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By slawless on 4/29/2010 12:26:39 PM , Rating: 2
remember one basic fact of life:

There is nothing that you can think of doing that you will not find an environmentalist opposed to it.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By AnnihilatorX on 4/30/2010 3:59:48 AM , Rating: 2
Stop using the term environmentalist to lump sum opinions.
There are environmentalists who supports nuclear, and there are some who don't. It's not that simple. You can't please everyone no matter what you do.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Suntan on 4/30/2010 2:28:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Stop using the term environmentalist to lump sum opinions.


Sorry, we didn’t coin the term.

Wherever the crusty loonies are, whatever they are rallying against (be it nuclear, offshore wind farms, solar arrays covering desert turtles, etc. etc.) they all call *themselves* “environmentalists” and claim that they are fighting for mother nature.

If you don’t want them sullying the term you want to call yourself, get them to call themselves something else or get a new term for yourself.

-Suntan


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By jimhsu on 4/29/2010 1:23:40 PM , Rating: 2
I really wonder what is acceptable for these people. Coal? Too dirty. Oil? Foreign dependence. Nuclear? Too radioactive. Wind? Too ugly. Let's go for cold fusion!


By Performance Fanboi on 4/29/2010 2:16:09 PM , Rating: 2
What would be acceptable to these morons is everyone living in small communities made of mud huts. We would gather daily to sing Kumbaya and thank the econuts for saving us.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By corduroygt on 4/29/2010 3:01:36 PM , Rating: 3
This is what they really want:

We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion—guilt-free at last!

—Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue).

Environmentallists need to be dealt with the same way looters are dealt with during disasters: shoot them on sight.

If you ask me, it’d be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won’t give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other.

—Amory Lovins in The Mother Earth–Plowboy Interview, Nov/Dec 1977, p.22

Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets…Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.

—David Graber, biologist, National Park Service

And finally:

If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. … This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.

—Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Targon on 4/30/2010 9:32:15 AM , Rating: 2
The problem isn't with environmentalists, it is the ones without a clue. With the idiots we have in government, you DO need someone to prevent them from knocking down all the trees to make room for new developments when you have entire neighborhoods that are vacant.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 4/30/2010 10:56:53 AM , Rating: 2
I agree.. I consider myself a life time environmentalist. In the 70's till today we recycled, looked for way to not use as much electricity, had a compost pile, had a vegetable garden, planted trees, took care of plants and wildlife in my area... But no I'm not a nut... It's just the way I was raised.

These extremist environmentalists are loons... They have no clue on what they are doing. They piss me off. They will waste $1,000 in paper in creating signs saying save the trees. Idiots.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By metaltoiletry on 4/29/2010 3:56:02 PM , Rating: 1
It's just a bunch of rich assholes who think the view from their ocean front property is going to be ruined.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By JediJeb on 4/29/2010 6:06:30 PM , Rating: 2
I think it is funny when looking at the map that the closest these will be to shore seems to be about 5 miles. Even a 300 foot tall tower is not going to look very big from 5 miles away.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Steven Morgan on 4/29/2010 4:54:05 PM , Rating: 2
Please stop lumping all us environmentalists with ELF (environazis). It would be like me lumping anyone in favor of closing our borders to immigration with limp-dicked skinheads (Neo-Nazis).

I wish this article would cite which environmental groups are against this project. I suspect the environmental groups are locals who adopted the environmentalist label as an expedient means to stop this project. It's hard to fight a government project in the courts because of a perceived threat to property values or small businesses. However, it's easy to get a court date if you cite the Endangered Species Act.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By bman on 4/29/2010 9:54:41 PM , Rating: 2
I think you mean a short walk off a long cliff


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By AnnihilatorX on 4/30/2010 3:57:29 AM , Rating: 2
You are missing the point, you can't please everyone
You can only please the majority. Welcome to politics.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Hiawa23 on 4/30/2010 9:12:20 AM , Rating: 2
This is crazy. I can't stand the environmentalists.

US govenment, please take the steps needed to find energy sources wherever you can as these ridiculous energy/fuel costs are killing the average Joe or working poor who are just barely getting by or falling further behind in this country. It's a shame a country supposed as great as ours has to import so much fuel from countries who hate us, & seemed fine doing that for decades & it seems like there is no relief in sight for us in the near future. Makes me sick every time I go to the pump or look at electric bill for my home.


RE: What a bunch of idiots...
By Danger D on 5/3/2010 3:36:59 PM , Rating: 2
Any viable energy source will be criticized by enviros. Anything. The only forms of energy they support are ideas a decade or more from being viable. Once those are viable, they'll be the devil.

They do love electric cars. They can feel like they're affecting change, because they're not stuck actually advocating any particular energy source. But when push comes to shove they're not in favor of wind or solar (see the endangered turtle lawsuit holding up the massive solar farm in the West). All they do is stick us with fossil energy (coal) for years to come.


"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki