Cape Wind Ready To Bring First Offshore Wind Farm

An anonymous reader writes "The Cape Wind Project, a wind farm of 130 turbines to be built in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Cape Cod, can finally move forward as they have been given a green light by the US Minerals Management service. Leaders from labor, civic, and environmental groups across Massachusetts and the country hailed the release of the report, as it is the final federal environmental report needed for the long delayed and much scrutinized project to finally move forward. When completed, Cape Wind will be capable of supplying up to 420 megawatts of electricity, potentially offsetting as much as a million tons of carbon emissions and saving more than 100 million gallons of oil every year. But the environment wont be the sole beneficiary of Cape Wind. It will likely be a boon to out of work Massachusetts residents, as well, given that as many as 1,000 green jobs could be brought to the Bay State in addition to a significant supply of clean, renewable energy."

Comments

The Loyal Opposition

[Van Cutter Romney]

If anyone wants to read what the Alliance To Save Nantucket Sound wants to say about this, it's here.

Economics in one Lesson

[brian0918]

Please, sweet jebus, read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. You cannot advance an economy by moving money and jobs from the private sector to the public sector. Every dollar that goes into this project through taxpayer money is a dollar not spent on food, clothing, haircuts, etc. All those local businesses will eventually see that reduced income and be forced to downsize. With government services, the most you can hope to do in the long term is break even. There is no competitive incentive to drive the service provider toward efficiency, and so public services tend to be the least efficient out there, as well as being the most prone to corruption.

Any thing can be made to seem cheap if you subsidize it with tax money. People only look at that one thing, and not at all the other things that are negatively impacted.

Re:Economics in one Lesson

[Rycross]

How would the private sector fund, build, and run a wind farm? They'd pool capital from a group of people and pay that money out to local businesses to build the wind farm, then operate it with their own employees and charge for the electricity.

How would the government do it? They'd collect taxes from citizens (in other words, pool capital from a group of people) and pay money out to local businesses to build the wind farm. It may be operated by their own employees, and they'd likely still charge for the electricity.

The only thing that changed is that the group of investors changes from a small group of people taking a risk with their own money to a large group of people collectively (via proxy) to pool their money to get a service. Government is not some magical entity that springs forth from the nether, nor is it some evil bile-dripping monstrosity. Government is simply the people working together, either literally or by proxy, to accomplish some social goal not being satisfied elsewhere.

The way the money flows through the economy doesn't change just because you call it government instead of corporation.
All those private companies and their employees are still going to be payed, and they're still going to contribute to the local economy. The only difference is that the risk and reward is socialized, rather than owned privately. The people obviously demanded it, and since no private company stepped up to the plate, they decided to handle it themselves.

Re:Economics in one Lesson

[Scareduck]

And the people get one opportunity every election to toss out malingerers, incompetents, and hacks. Good luck if your pet issue isn't the one that happens to be hot that year. Businesses have to answer to the customer EVERY DAMN DAY. People who fail to notice this difference are arguing about strawmen.

Re:Economics in one Lesson

[Rycross]

Companies will only answer to the customer if it becomes a hot issue too. Do you think Comcast gave a shit when my internet connection wasn't working? Given that they refused to fix it for a month, they sure didn't seem to. Any sufficiently large company is not going to care about their customers unless those customers collectively make them. In other words, unless it becomes a hot-issue and they are in danger of losing a lot of them. Like a politician. You're also ignoring the fact that even though election comes up only periodically, they have to keep their constituents happy pretty much over the entire term. Polls matter.

Now, I'm not saying its exactly the same. Thats a strawman. What I was getting at is that the flow of money is similar enough that the argument of government being a black hole is silly. But to claim that companies are accountable and government is unaccountable is blatantly false. Companies are far less accountable than you think, and governments significantly more.

Re:Economics in one Lesson

[idontgno]

Businesses have to answer to the customer EVERY DAMN DAY.

That's the most persistent illusion about business responsibilities in this sad sad world, and probably the primary source of dissonance between business theory and practice.

Large businesses have to answer to the shareholder. Every quarter. And they have to pacify, mislead, or (if large and predatory enough) ignore the customer. Continually. While spending a relative (and relatively effective) pittance on PR and marketing, to cover the fact that the customer is the least important participant in the process.

In this latter fact, they share uncomfortable resemblance to the "public sector."

Re:Economics in one Lesson

[brian0918]

while completely ignoring the velocity of money. People employed by the govt. still buy things. Especially haircuts.

I'm not sure how my federal tax dollars are getting routed to support my local barber shop. Did they solve P vs NP?

Fundamental to my argument is that people have a right to that which they produce. Secondary to that is that people know how best to spend the money that they earn. Those that do not earn their money - e.g. politicians - do not know how best to spend it because they did not go through the trial and error necessary to learn from mistakes. They will invariably take the shortcut of funding whatever is most convenient to them - e.g. helping a friend out (cronyism), indiscriminately trying any suggestions, or simply holding out for pork projects that will buy them another term in office. The most convenient route, it turns out, often violates the most rights, and is the least efficient option.

Re:Economics in one Lesson

[JesseMcDonald]

I can't help but notice that you're completely overlooking the main difference, which is that the private sector can only pool money from those who choose voluntarily to participate, whereas the taxes which fund government projects are extracted from supporters and detractors alike. This is no trivial matter; refusing to address it undermines your entire case.

If it were just a matter of "people working together ... to accomplish some social goal" a simple (private-sector) non-profit organization would suffice. The only reason to turn the project over to the government is to impose involuntary costs and/or regulations on those with a lesser degree of political influence, so that some can benefit at others' expense.

Re:Economics in one Lesson

[Kenrod]

Most people exchange what they produce for money, which is almost universally exchangeable for something else of value without carrying the risk of a non-cash type of asset. The parent's point is that in a free market people exchange their work for something of value which is owned and controlled by them. People care more about that which they own than that which they do not own.

And most Fortune 500 companies do just fine in good times and bad. If you are thinking of that the banks have been mis-managed lately, think again. The banks adapted high-risk, high-return strategies because there was an implicit guarantee that the Feds would bail them out. Guess what? The Feds bailed them out. The banks would likely not have engaged in such risky behavior without the meddling of the Federal government through institutions like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and insipidly poor oversight by the SEC and Congress.

Re:Economics in one Lesson

[drsquare]

I can't help but notice that you're completely overlooking the main difference, which is that the private sector can only pool money from those who choose voluntarily to participate, whereas the taxes which fund government projects are extracted from supporters and detractors alike. This is no trivial matter; refusing to address it undermines your entire case.

That's exactly the benefit of government funding, that private investors only want investments that provide instant, guaranteed big profits, and aren't willing to invest in long-term projects.

Another upside of government investment is that they can invest in things that benefit society as a whole, whereas private investors are only interested in investments that benefit themselves, personally. The tragedy of the commons sums up the failure of capitalism, and why socialism is so important. People working together for the benefit of all achieve more than people trying to better themselves even if it fucks over everyone.

The only reason to turn the project over to the government is to impose involuntary costs and/or regulations on those with a lesser degree of political influence, so that some can benefit at others' expense.

Everyone benefits from reduced carbon emissions.

In related news...

[ruin20]

seagull populations decrease as biologists note heavy shark populations near turbines.

think I'm joking right?

there's already a lawsuit

1300 raptors are killed annually. Among them are 70 golden eagles that are federally protected. In total, 4700 birds are killed annually.

although I'm sure these are a little better planned out then they're predecessors I still haven't heard anyone talk about this in a long while.

Re:In related news...

[Crazy Man on Fire]

What you forgot to mention is the wind farm you're talking about was built over 30 years ago and uses outdated technology. The multitude of smaller turbines turn faster and are much more dangerous to birds than today's larger, more efficient, and slower turning turbines. In fact, the older turbines are being slowly replaced with newer ones to produce more electricity for less money while also killing fewer birds.

From the Wikipedia article you linked:

Considered largely obsolete, these numerous small turbines are being gradually replaced with much larger and more cost-effective units. The small turbines are dangerous to various raptors that hunt California Ground Squirrels in the area. 1300 raptors are killed annually. Among them are 70 golden eagles that are federally protected. In total, 4700 birds are killed annually.[2] The larger units turn more slowly and, being elevated higher, are less hazardous to the local wildlife.

Re:In related news...

[pixelpusher220]

I think comparing the number of kills by bridges/buildings/antennas to the number of kills by Wind Turbines is a bit unfair bridges/buildings/antennas outnumber turbines by well over an order of magnitude... The bridges/etc. are stationary objects, where as the turbine blades can move quite fast especially at the tips. Another reason comparing kills might problematic.

The concept gets interesting when you consider we're going to have to build many many many more turbines to make a sizeable dent in our energy demand.

I'm all in favor of the turbines, but some concerns can be valid if properly voiced too.

Re:They Still Need to Employ People To Build/Maint

[Rei]

The biggest problem with this argument is that it's completely inaccurate. Its not being paid for with taxpayer money... now. It's being paid for with taxpayer money a couple years from now, plus a couple years worth of interest. The extra things that people are buying with their salaries from this are not coming at the cost to someone else *now*.

That may seem like a trivial distinction, but if that raises consumer confidence and restores the US (and world) economy even just a little bit sooner, then it's absolutely a good thing. Plus, unlike the other oft cited case of this (war spending), we actually get something out of it other than craters and rubble -- in this case, wind turbines.

Re:You obviously have never been in the military

[Ethanol-fueled]

The military is still the most efficient employer I've ever had.

I think the military's increasing dependency on inefficient civilian contractors is what's causing problems. I remember in basic training we had certain administrative briefings done by this guy who bragged about leaving the military only to come back making 30 dollars an hour when they could have just used an E-3 or E-4. Many lower-level tech instructors joked about the same thing.

And then you have places like Blackwater -- if being a glorified security guard(though much more demanding than working for DHS) is your thing then you can make around 350,000 a year, though I hope to see that kind of excess come to an end very soon.

they don't even really answer to the shareholder

[Trepidity]

There's been a decades-long fight by activist shareholders to try to get corporations to actually answer to the shareholders. Especially in very large corporations with dilute control, it's not clear who management actually does answer to, if anyone. Perhaps the board, but then the boards are so terribly intermingled with management and between companies that they hardly constitute an effective advocate for the shareholder.

Re:Alan Walters died last week

[FTWinston]

We must have radically different definitions of right wing.

Indeed, the one-dimensional political map normally used is hopelessly inadequate for even very basic purposes. May I recommend the 2D political compass?