Skip to comments.Kennedy’s opposition to wind farm is suspicious ( NIMBY Alert )
Posted on 04/30/2006 8:35:58 AM PDT by george76
Fans of U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy have long argued that he has fought the good fight ...
But today, he is defending the indefensible: special interest legislation, tucked into a Coast Guard authorization bill, that would give Gov. Mitt Romney the power to veto the proposed Cape Wind energy project, even though it would be in federal waters.
The project... more than five miles offshore of Cape Cod.
The equivalent of burning 113 million barrels of oil per year.
Proponents of Cape Wind say it is an important source of alternative, renewable energy, and it has the backing of such environmental groups as Greenpeace USA, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Conservation Law Foundation.
Even though this is an election year for Kennedy, it should be an easy time of it.
No formidable competition is on that horizon, and he has amassed an $8.7 million campaign war chest (even as he also argues "I am concerned we have the best Congress money can buy.").
Ironically, he did admit on the NPR interview to changing his mind on one issue he fiercely opposed 20 years ago -- nuclear power.
New technology dealing with enriched uranium has convinced Kennedy, he said, "I think we have to put everything back on the table."
Everything but a pathbreaking wind farm eight miles at sea from his beloved Hyannis Port.
(Excerpt) Read more at metrowestdailynews.com ...
I suggest we use the windbag teddy kennedy to operate these off shore windmills with his tired tirads. Lower energy bills and ted out of the senate, A win-win situation!
There's something wrong with a state that keeps sending this turd to the senate.
Maybe he'll change his mind when he sobers up....
They could call it the Mary Jo Kopechne Wind Farm.
You know, for the life of me, I can't figure out what "NIMBY" is. Totally ready to thump my forehead and shout "Of course!" once somebody clues me in...
Not In My BackYard.
Somebody should ask him for suggestions on where he thinks a wind farm would be OK. I suspect he can't do it without displacing some of his constituents.
He should release his jet fuel, electrical, heating oil, total energy use records...
Just how large an area can be serviced by the power generated, part of a state, a few cities, or great parts of New England.
The reason I'm asking is that there are people in northern New England who are hurting especially badly from energy prices. Whether or not they get government help, if this project, or one like it further north would help them to be more self-sufficient, I think it would be a good thing for the country and all concerned.
Their selfish, self-centered interest turns me off. We all have to put up with things we'd rather not have for the good of others.
Anywhere, but not near him.
He is against personal responsibility for his own actions.
At peak output, the project would generate more than 400 megawatts of electricity, enough to meet the needs of some 400,000 homes on Cape Cod and the nearby islands.
Dorchester or Roxbury would be fine with the pig, not that he would publicly say so tho.
5 miles visibility across the ocean is no problem on a reasonably clear day, depending upon how tall these windmills will be. I used to sail off Mass, NH, and Maine (and elsewhere in the Northeast) and I don't doubt they'd be visible from the shore and certainly while sailing in Nantucket Sound.
But if they are hogging energy that could be diverted elsewhere, that is another matter.
There may be some who manage to live there year-round who might benefit.
As a child I visited Nantucket. Presumably it was more affordale then, lovely, charming place. Kids came out to the boat and dove for coins people threw in the water. I wonder if they still do that. As a parent, I don't think I'd like my kid doing that.
Just imagine Holland without those picturesque windmills.
We have made this nest and now we are lying in it and no one is pointing to the real problem.
You are correct.
If the emotional politicans restrict and deny oil production from Alaska, California, Florida...and
They deny new refineries ( 30 years ? )...and
They allow different states and cities to require different boutique gasoline blends...which causes big delays and big expenses...and
They deny new nuclear building permits...and
They allow millions of new illegals into the country who then want energy...
No wonder it is a mess after 30 years of neglect.
Global installations in 2006 are predicted to be 13GW.
For comparison, Hoover Dam has a 2GW peak generation capacity.
He can't even fight a good fight against the bottle!
At five miles...you can't see a thing. Of course, if rafting or sailing...within one mile...it will be obvious. You can bank on this...no wind farms on the entire cape...off the cape or on the cape itself...will be allowed. So you can start asking yourself just what kinda special interests are at work and how much they care about alternate electrical power (answer: none).
In Germany...with around 20,000 of these wind-mills out there...it barely produces 2 percent of the national grid. Of course, the long term goal is 30 percent...to knock atomic energy out of the system. But you can figure the numbers here...well over 200,000 would be necessary. And Germans are already starting to have heartburn at 20,000 now. You have to place them in places where wind does occur...so that takes a number of places out of competition. And the tops of hills are the best spot...which offends alot of the nature lovers.
I'm with you except for one thing. By the time the costs of building and maintaining the ocean/land wind farms are amortized, it's not going to mean cheaper energy for me or the millions of people out there like me. I just don't see it. They tell us things are going to be better, then the expenses keep climbing anyway.
We have no (that I know of) hydro-electric power plants on the Mississippi. A lot of energy could be supplied that way. They could stick those windmills in the river even. In the end, it's not going to give us cheaper energy because somebody will ruin it. I'm just cynical about it.
It's all like one big mirage to me. I'd like to be proven wrong. We got a nuke plant. Did our energy prices go down? No, they have hit record highs.
We have to do something, but in the end, the little and middle people are going to get screwed over again.
Nope, yak, yak, yak, and nothing will change. We need to drill now and at the same time, look ahead to the future, not wait like we have. Still, I do not believe no matter what they do, energy costs are going to decline for the average American.
At the end of 2005, Germany has 17,574 turbines producing 5.5% of national electricity requirements.
- I suggest we use the windbag teddy kennedy to operate these off shore windmills with his tired tirads. Lower energy bills and ted out of the senate, A win-win situation!--texson66
The Do As I Say, Not As I Do crowd.
It would take the wind our of the dims attacks blaming the gas prices on us and Bush.
Why doesn't someone start asking these dimWits "Why are you democrats so determined to keep the U.S. dependent on foreign oil that is , increasingly, controlled by hostile regimes?" (We need a mantra that will catch the sheeple's ears)
Let them answer that one - Like, is Keenedy got a secret deal going with China? Will we soon see China erecting a wind farm off the cost of Mass? They're already putting up their oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico..
Bring to the front their decades of blocking drilling, refineries, exploration, alternatives, and now even this wind farm.
Someone needs to add up how much LESS dependent we would be right now if not for all the blocking of the above.
Add it up and get it out there people to look at...
(I am amused that there's not also a comparison to people = like there should be a cartoon of - at the gas pump, screaming about the price, with a $5.00 Starbucks in one hand, and a $5.00 a pack cigarette in the other - a person could save that $300. worth a month (at only one uber-coffee and one pack a day) and buy a heck of alot of gas
"From 1986 to 2003, using 2004 dollars, the real national annual average price for gasoline, including taxes, generally has been below $2 per gallon," noted the Federal Trade Commission in a 2005 report absolving the industry of collusion.
"By contrast, between 1919 and 1985, real national annual average retail gasoline prices were above $2 per gallon more often than not."
While the average profit on the sale of a gallon of gasoline is nine cents, the average state and federal tax on that same gallon of gasoline is about 45 cents (and 52 cents in Michigan). And if we must have an investigation, how about investigating the extent to which government regulations drive up prices and block new production?
Management guru Peter Drucker once remarked, with his usual drollery, that profit is "whatever government lets a company keep." But most folks have a vastly inflated view of corporate profits. One regular survey of Americans found that the majority believes the average corporate profit is between 30 percent and 40 percent of sales, while the real figure is closer to 4 percent.
No one alternative is gong to be the end all supplier. That could be a plus also - eggs in separate baskets - harder for someone to destroy them all at once.
I'm semi-retired - make a little money writing, a little painting, etc - put it together and I eat. If I sat and said to myself, well, the writing isn't going to be enough, or the painting isn't going to bring in enough, so I'll do nothing, I'd be really hungry by now.
"Nuclear power is the only way to solve our energy needs and even blockheads like Kennedy are starting to realize it.
The point here is Kennedy is a hypocrite because he advocates alternative energy for thee and me, but not for him and his rich friends."
Perhaps we should buy a small piece of property near this POS's home. Thereon, place a memorial to Mary Jo Kopechne.
The same f___ing hypocrite he's always been.
America should secede from Taxachusetts.
Should cover his bar bill and bail for the relatives.
I agree even if it doesn't work out as anticipated.
The whole thing makes me angry. I do NOT begrudge people luxury homes, but everything is out of kilter. That and condos are all that are being built. Those homes are HUGE and not energy cost-efficient. The reason there are many people can build those homes is that (1) they do make a lot of money and (2) interest rates have been low, stimulating the building industry. The net effect is that, as a society we are robbing peter to pay paul. The rich in both parties are pulling the strings, and they are going to look out for themselves first. That's politics.
Instead we should be building earth berm homes, smaller ones, blah blah, so the whole thing does not make any sense.
To further complicate the problem, because our society has become so fragmented, people are not as self-reliant as they could be. With a two-parent home, the father can do a lot of things to reduce energy costs that women can do but are harder for them.
My home is very energy inefficient which is partly my own fault. It needs complete new insulation in the attic, caulking, I bought the wrong kind of storm windows which are impossible to have nice shiny clean windows the way they are designed, some are missing storm windows because I can't pull them out myself, need help for that. So it goes. I will deal with it. I have taken no help from any government program, even low-cost loans from the city because I am perverse about certain things and feel that other people deserve it more. But a lot of them are playing the system for all it's worth. For the very rich, it is not an issue if you have so many millions, it's chump change to pay your monthly bill.
Now I need to get off this kick and start to figure out my medigap insurance, because I intend to purchase some kind of supplement. What a mess that is going to be to sort through!
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.