Slashdot Mirror


Government Approves First US Offshore Wind Farm

RobotRunAmok writes "In a groundbreaking decision that some say will usher in a new era of clean energy, US Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said today he was approving the nation's first offshore wind farm, the controversial Cape Wind project off of Cape Cod. The project has undergone years of environmental review and political maneuvering, including opposition from the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, whose home overlooks Nantucket Sound, and from Wampanoag Indian tribes who complained that the 130 turbines, which would stand more than 400 feet above the ocean surface, would disturb spiritual sun greetings and possibly ancestral artifacts and burial grounds on the seabed. But George Bachrach, president of the Environmental League of Massachusetts, hailed the decision, saying it was 'a critical step toward ending our reliance on foreign oil and achieving energy independence.'"

13 of 432 comments (clear)

  1. Re:that's great but... by ducomputergeek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Nuclear doesn't produce that much waste. Especially if we could reprocess the fuel. In the end you get a few tons of waste that's hot for a couple hundred years, but that can be dealt with better than the tons of crap coal spews out a day. It's just that we've had 30+ years of people scaremongering about Nuclear energy.

    --
    "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
  2. Re:Flashback! by icebike · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well Nimby is hard to defeat.

    Objections for marine deployment of this type of farm are mostly navigational (ships mostly skirt this area beyond nantucket Island but smaller craft and fishing vessels could see collisions), radar interference, and a whole bunch of people that want to push even visual impacts onto someone else. (Bird strikes are for the most part gross exaggerations, long since debunked.)

    Driving in the west, I find the wind farms something majestic. I suppose I would not want one directly over my house, which is why the off shore solution is perfect for the eastern seaboard. These things are quiet, and have a proven track record of reliability. Standing up to the salt air may be an issue.

    The Indian tribes build casinos on their own ancestral sacred grounds but somehow object to wind farms out on the water. This was never a sea-going tribe. But a few perks from Uncle Ted and sure enough a spirit dreamed up just last night will be annoyed.

    Its odd that Kennedy's objections were enough to hold this project off under republican administrations, but as soon as he is dead, even the Democrats decide its good to go.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  3. wiff! by Fishbulb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    America's first? Really? Are we that far behind the times?

    Sad.

  4. Re:Flashback! by blair1q · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We don't use any foreign oil whatsoever to generate electricity.

    You got proof of that?

    We use oil to generate 3% of our electricity. It's bigger than all "alternative" sources (like wind farms) combined. If we use less oil for electricity, we will need less oil overall, which will reduce demand for foreign and domestic oil alike.

    If we have more electricity, we may use more electricity for home heating or cars, so this works on both supply and demand.

    So unless you've got a credible citation for your claim, I'm going to say fie.

  5. Re:Good move... by Allnighte · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know people in the area. They told me the biggest objections came from people living in NYC and Conn. who had summer and weekend homes in the area. The thing is some 15 miles off of the coast. The people most bothered will be on their yachts miles out to sea.

    Can you really blame them? Take a look at the estimated visual impact of the wind farm:
    http://www.capewind.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=9&page=1

    I don't know about you but I'd obviously rather stab my eyes out and burn down my vacation home than see those ugly filthy things on the horizon. /sarcasm

  6. Re:that's great but... by Charcharodon · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I used to live right next door to Tehachapi pass, home of the largest windfarm in the west. The wind was never anything but reliable. You don't invest millions of dollars in windmills unless you put them some place where the wind blows more often than not. You could count on both hands the number of days throughout the year where the wind wasn't blowing. Sure you might not know what the exact speed of the wind was going to be at a given time, but that didn't really ever make much of a difference since they just simply added more wind mills to get the peak output they were wanting.

    I've been living and working on Air Force bases for the last 15 years. People in the industry know how to find and take advantage of wind conditions as they are absolutley critical to airfield operations both in runway placement as well as ambient wind speeds that assist in the takeoff and landing of aircraft. This has been going on for nearly a century, so I think it is safe to say that the guys spending the big bucks on windfarms know what they are doing.

    The down time excuse are pretty weak at best, and are usually held up by the NIMBY crowd.

  7. Re:Flashback! by dakameleon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Standing up to the salt air may be an issue.

    The Dutch have had them for a couple of years, so there's at least some precedent and any issues they encounter are likely to give a 4 - 5 year heads up to this initiative.

    --
    Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
  8. Even weirder idea!!! by clonan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Use nuclear waste as ... wait for it ...

    radiation shielding.

    One of the issues with nuclear energy is absorbing the high energy neutrons to generate heat. We can line the reactors with nuclear waste and the neutron bombardment would transmutate it from 100s of years to safe in decades.

  9. Re:About damn time. by sqrt(2) · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I actually think they are rather beautiful. Certainly not a "natural" beauty, but there is something majestic about them as a feat of engineering. Now the noise is what would bother me, but I think they are planned to be sufficiently far away were that wouldn't be a problem.

    --
    If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. Wind sites in California by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting

    California has only a few good sites for land wind farms - Altamont Pass, Pacheco Pass, Mojave, and Solano County are the big ones. All four now have big wind farms. Other than Altamont Pass, which is a big migratory bird corridor and has row after row of windmills, there have been few complaints. There aren't many remaining on-shore sites in California; we're about done with onshore wind. The Cape Cod people have been whining about their wind farm for a decade. Tough.

    Offshore of Calfornia looks promising. Take a look at that high-wind area close to shore, west of Humbolt County. There's also a huge high wind zone south of Santa Barbara, and most of it is still on the continental shelf, so the water isn't too deep. I doubt there will be objections; Santa Barbara has already had off-shore oil wells.

  12. Its a start by senorbum · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For people who are complaining that wind tech/solar tech isn't there yet, I think you have to think of the politics behind this. If we get the ball moving now and get lawmakers and the public to overall have a good impression of these energy generation systems, when the technologies do improve it will be vastly easier to implement them. The biggest issue I see extends not only to clean tech, but all tech. America's energy infrastructure is incredibly aged and inefficient. Power consumption will continue to increase which will continue to strain the system. So even if our energy source is clean, there is still a large energy issue that needs to be addressed.

  13. Re:About damn time. by thijsh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A friend of me lives in Germany in a small village in the shadow of a nuclear power plant. They actually live with the thing in their back yard and could not be happier! The power plant provides the town with some good income they invest in the local economy and infrastructure. People are actually moving *to* the town instead of away as with many small rural towns.

    I've visited the power plant and they have a special visitor center where you can learn all about the specific processes used, from mining the fissionables to storing the waste in huge steel containers. But the best part about the exhibit is the cloud chamber, you can see all kinds of different radiation particles in the box of about 1 square meter (really awesome!). It really emphasized the fact that absolutely *no* radiation leaks from the reactor, the only trails you could see were random in all directions. In fact the kind gentlemen who showed us around told us that every single coal plant exhausts more radioactive radiation in one day than a nuclear power plant in a year!

    I can also honestly say that I want nuclear power and I want it in my own backyard. Sadly nuclear is still on the decline here, mostly because people are very misinformed by the eco-mafia... If they knew that the alternative (coal realistically) is so much worse for the environment and health of locals (and that modern nuclear is completely different from Chernobyl) they would not protest. So I guess the only way is to properly inform people (so good move by E-On with their visitor center).