Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

A Mighty Wind

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the nimby dept.

The Almighty Buck 670

DoraLives writes "Fascinating New York Times piece regarding a proposed wind farm for Nantucket Sound. Suddenly, all the environmentally friendly locals are going ballistic over the prospects of seeing an 'industrial energy complex' in their backyard. Walter Cronkite decries it, as do many other local checkbook environmentalists. Greenpeace says 'Jim Gordon (the developer) is the real thing, there aren't many entrepreneurs out there willing to take risks to clean up the environment.' Who's right?"

cancel ×

670 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

w00t! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205503)

...It's summer!

--
This post is powered by Santana Row Wi-Fi and Caipirinha.

I hate reruns.... (0, Redundant)

moehoward (668736) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205504)

This is a REALLY old story.

Next?

Shoal area (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205674)

The windmills are to be located in a shoal area. As far as I'm concerned, they are a navigational aid. Just put red lights on them.

NIMBY (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205507)

It's the "Not In My Back Yard" syndrome. Everyone thinks these ideas are great... as long as it's not where they live. If you want the benefits though, someone has to live with the negatives.

Re:NIMBY (4, Insightful)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205535)

A/k/a hypocrisy :-)

People demand hybrid cars, but don't drive them because they don't have enough power to excessively speed in city.

People demand low power [re: less heat] computers than buy Athlon 3200+ ...

People are worried of dying at age 20 from coronary diesease then eat a 25pc bucket to themselves...

etc....

Whatever, more power! I wouldn't mind one in my backyard only if I was able to fling birds at it...

Tom

Re:NIMBY (3, Funny)

bj8rn (583532) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205537)

I certainly could use a windmill in/near my backyard - it would drive all those bloody moles away.

Re:NIMBY (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205540)

Negatives? Windfarms are, in my experience, very beautiful, quiet, aesthetically pleasing things.

I can't imagine why these people are upset.

Re:NIMBY (5, Interesting)

gerf (532474) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205578)

Negatives? Windfarms are, in my experience, very beautiful, quiet, aesthetically pleasing things.

You are talking about some of the richest, most pompous, uptight, annoying people in the world. If you put a poster in your window, that doesn't conform to what they think you should have, you get dragged before the local council, and possibly fined. It's stupid.

As is, Nantucket is one of the most expensive areas to live in. Everything is brough over by ferry: gas, oil, food, everything. It's a place to have a home for Trophy purposes only.

That said, BUILD IT. That's a LOT of power for an area that needs it. And, i'd say build twice that. Hey, i'd live by one of those mills. They look cool, are safe, and are environmentally friendly.

Amen! (5, Interesting)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205614)

I have a friend who is an attorney who had been litigating a case down there. A person bought an empty lot, and one of the neighbors been fighting in court to prevent him from building the house because it interfered with his view of the beach.

If the person was really concerned about the view of the beach, he could have bought the lot.

Re:NIMBY (4, Interesting)

BWJones (18351) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205564)

It's the "Not In My Back Yard" syndrome. Everyone thinks these ideas are great... as long as it's not where they live. If you want the benefits though, someone has to live with the negatives.

So, I've actually wondered why we don't just build a huge nucelar power complex in Nevada someplace on land already owned by the federal government and then ship that power nationwide. All of the nuclear waste could be shipped fairly locally on (again) federally owned and operated land, the environmental impacts would be minimal (relatively), the federal government could sell the power and thus balance out this huge $44Trillion debt that is going to bite us in the ass in the next few years especially with these tax cuts, and we could stimulate the economy. No more wind farms crowding the views of hill tops and no more coal burning power plants that put out significant radiation into the atmosphere, no more dams to block up water ways and impede fish migration etc...etc...etc....

Re:NIMBY (2, Insightful)

BWJones (18351) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205592)

I should also have added that this approach could lessen our reliance on oil from the middle east that has us in Iraq right now and make both an electrical based and hydrogen based economy more feasible.

Re:NIMBY (4, Insightful)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205657)

Long distance power transmission still sucks. Of course, something like this would be great for processing other materials.. like, say, generating Hydrogen to run our so-called hydrogen economy of the future.

Inverse square (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205740)

law.

Re:NIMBY (3, Funny)

weorthe (666189) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205575)

A hundred years from now hoity-toity real-estate agents in Nantucket will be touting the scenic view of the picturesque Nantucket Sound wind-mill farm in their hoity-toity brochures.

Re:NIMBY (4, Interesting)

rossz (67331) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205635)

Someone proposed (sorry, don't remember who) that there should be an energy discount for people living near power plants. The further away you live, the more you pay for you electricity. Seems reasonable.

On a side note, I drive past the Livermore windmills every day. I think they're pretty cool. I refer to the area as the "propeller farm".

Re:NIMBY (1, Troll)

Master Bait (115103) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205636)

A blighted landscape vs. air polution? Imagine how fucked up the outside would look if solar panels produced all our electricity, let alone wind machines or geothermal of biomass production.

The world's real problem is overpopulation of human beings. Alternative energy projects are a band-aide hiding the ultimate challenge for humanity, which is how to reduce the population.

Re:NIMBY (1)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205691)

they all thought that this stuff should be placed in poor wind swept tracts of land where the poor folk live and the cattel graze...woops, forgot that the ocean is the largest unobstructed area on earth for wind to wip up.

The real Greenies (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205524)

Walter Cronkite is never right.

Liberals (0, Interesting)

WheelDweller (108946) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205525)

Liberals are all for saving nature, stopping business, and building big government. And they're even for alternative, CLEAN energy like this...as long as it's not where they have to look at it.

They're all for women's rights...unless it's Bill Clinton on the prowl.

They're all for freedom of choice as long as it only applies the the choice of abortion, and not school vouchers that might actually SAVE some of the poor urban kids from the continued ghetto.

Do we really care what they have to say about anything? Do we really want'em running the country?

Re:Liberals (-1, Troll)

HBI (604924) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205532)

Get ready for the leftist mod assault.

At least you went down like a trooper.

Someone mod down parent (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205556)

It's flamebait when our un-elected President is fucking up America, by having more taxes, more corporate give aways, more deficit spending, and less of anything for the poor.

Re:Liberals (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205560)

Oh spare us your rabid right-wing/libertarian ranting.

Re:Liberals (1)

harrsk (654320) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205583)

What an excellent and well thought out rebuttal. Exactly what I would expect from the 'educated' left.

Re:Liberals (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205617)

Thank you.

Re:Liberals (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205584)

And spare us your liberal, I want to have an orgy but can't afford boos (or hookers) whining. It's your own damn fault you can't afford boos or hookers, seeing as how high taxes are. Lower taxes and you can have your orgy, jerk.

Re:Liberals (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205591)

Aha! Thank you. Here we see the typical left-wing response to fact. You can't refute what was said, so you respond with the name calling and vitriol. Sorry old man, but the jig is up. Tell me, what's it like to be so full of hatred for those whose views are different from yours? Oh, wait, you're not full of hate-you're full of tolerance because "it's all good", right?

Re:Liberals (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205653)

Hahaha, you're funny. People laugh at you a lot, don't they, so you take out your frustrations online.

Re:Liberals (1)

garymm (680147) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205764)

look, he told you to shut up because you were being stupid. If you want a me to refute what you said, here goes: there are lots of hypocrites on the left AND the right. the question you should ask is "do we really want hypocrites running the country?"

Re:Liberals (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205565)

"Do we really care what they have to say about anything? Do we really want'em running the country?"

No, we don't!

Re:Liberals (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205576)

You forgot a few things...

They're against racism, unless you hate white people.

They're against sexism, unless you hate men.

They're for free speech, unless your point of view differs from theirs.

The most bigoted, intolerant, narrow minded people Iâ(TM)ve ever met have come from the left. But of course, since their bigotry, intolerance, and narrow-mindedness is politically correct, they get praised for it.

Quit over-generalizing about liberals (1)

jfern (115937) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205638)

Liberals have varying beliefs. We are not united with one belief set the way Rush Limbaugh unites the conservative. However, I can tell you that most liberals I know are not politically correct, and realize that racism can apply to any race, including whites, and sexism can apply to men. As for free speech, the leader of the ACLU, a Holocaust surviver, once argued for the right of the American Nazi party to have a demonstration. Yes, you read that right.

Re:Quit over-generalizing about liberals (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205680)

I think he was referring to the *practical* censorship that goes on, for example, on college campuses. Say something un-PC and you get accuse of hate-speech, or you simply get shouted down.

+4 interesting? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205579)

The moderators are on crack.

Bush lied about 9/11. Bush lied about WMD. Bush stole an election. Bush lied about California's energy crisis. Cheney got his company a several billion dollar contract in Iraq.

Clinton lied about a blow job.

Re:+4 interesting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205607)

Which is worse: Screwing an intern, or screwing the country?

Re:+4 interesting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205642)

Clinton did both!

Re:+4 interesting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205611)

Clinton lied about every damned thing he ever said. It was the fact that he lied under oath about the blowjob, and later about lying under oath about the blowjob, that finally got him in trouble.

Re:+4 interesting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205645)

Clinton lied about every damned thing he ever said.

Clinton was just a lot better at it than Bush. 'Course, he had more to lie about too.

Re:Liberals (1)

bj8rn (583532) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205630)

Anyone who is running/wants to run a country is in for whatever helps them get more votes. Gerhard Schroder was completely anti-war and anti-USA until he got elected. After that, he cooled off. One of the government parties in Estonia (where I live) was popular because they were new and they promised zero-tolerance for crimes - until one the minister of justice was caught speeding. And so on. Everyone promises whatever will get them to the power, there is no such things as traditional liberals or conservatives or socialists or whatever these days.

Re:Liberals (1, Insightful)

drdale (677421) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205637)

But this game can be played both ways, can't it? For examnple, conservatives are all for getting government off of your back, unless: 1. You wish to use marijauna in the privacy of your own home (I don't, by the way). 2. You wish to engage in any kind of sexual activity other than hetrosexual sex between two partners in the missionary position with the lights off, in the privacy of your own home. 3. You want to control what happens inside your own body. 4. You want to send e-mail that no one except its intended recipient can read. And so on ad nauseum.

Re:Liberals (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205701)

> You want to send e-mail that no one except its
> intended recipient can read

How soon they forget...Bush/Ashcroft are just continuing the policies started by Clinton/Reno.

Re:Liberals (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205705)

So liberals only want you to have the freedom to debauch, to murder unborn children, and to send plaintext emails and feel illusory confidence in their security? Hmm.

Re:Liberals- at least you aren't bitter... (0, Flamebait)

bp13 (681656) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205689)

There's excellent scientific evidence that self-identified "conservatives" are actually merely chronically sleep-deprived psychotics. Chronically sleeping only 6 hours a night (the average for "conservatives") shrinks the fore-brain, the seat of human civility, the ability to initiate new behaviors, and discontinue obsolete behaviors. How much do YOU sleep, Mr. Wheeldweller?

Re:Liberals- at least you aren't bitter... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205720)

Huh. The average sleep time for a reader of Slashdot is 4-5 hours a night. What's your point?

Re:Liberals (1, Insightful)

Omestes (471991) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205744)

Taking the bait, probably shouldn't, but...

Yes, and the conservatives are at least pure in principle. Support the rich, screw the poor. Screw the enviroment, and sustainability, If you or one of your rich freinds get more money from it. Screw the world, if it is in our interests we'll bomb anyone. Against even the precept of choice, unless it deals with consumer products, and on that their even kinda confused being that they also admit to likeing monopolies.

All conservatives are against sexual trists, because then we might NEED the abortion that is an abomination before THEIR PRIVATE GOD. And their only against trists of presidents that do better than any of theirs. the clinton thing is OVER, and had nothing to do with Womens rights. They just bring it up, lest we remember that with CLinton we had a SURPLUS, and got into 2 wars (with UN approval) in EIGHT Years, as apposed to two illegal (as in against the UN charter)wars in THREE years.

Back on topic, herr troll. The conservative wouldn't even ENDORSE this idea, so at least someone has a miniscule idea of what to do. NIMBY isn't a liberal disease, it is a HUMAN disease, how many of your conservative fatcats would want their large pollution spewing oil thingies in their HUGE TEXAS MANOR's backyard?

Also, why not build said windfarm in an unpopulated area, and string wires to the grid? Bulding on expensive real estate isn't the greatest of ideas.

(note: scathing comments aside, I'm not a liberal, I swear your distaste of them, except only in the social sense (DEATH TO PC!), but I find it hbard to take someone saying one group is hypocrites, and the other isn't. Both Dems and Reps are excatly the same now anyways, and only an ill informed dimwit would think otherwise. Partisan politics should die...)

Re:Liberals (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205766)

Conservatives are all for destroying nature, supporting predatory monopolies, and building huge, crippling debt and deficits. And they're deathly afraid of alternative, CLEAN energy like this because it will make their big oil stocks go down the toilet.

They're all for women's rights...unless it's regarding church leadership.

They're all for eliminating freedom of choice as long as it's not their daughter who's knocked up at 16.

Do we really care what they (including WheelDweller) have to say about anything? Do we really want'em running the country?

Conservatives (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205775)

As opposed to conservative libertarian/republican Dog Eat Dog, survival of the fittest idiots, such as yorself.

They're all for the Idea that women should have no rights.

They're all against the environment, give the conservatives what they want, there will be no clean drinking water, no clean air because they will get rid of all laws against polluting.

They're all agains all social services, Financial loans & aid, Minimum Wage, unemployment, worker's comp ,public transportation, public education "The only reason why they want vouchers is to get rid of public education, and make it so that only the rich can have an education"

They believe that all blacks are "Out of date farm machines" and hate anyone that is not white and is crippled "maybe that's the real reason Daddy Bush puked all over the Prime Minister of Japan, maybe he really hates anyone that is not white"

they're all for the employers being able to do whatever they want to their employees.

They're all for the idea if you're not rich, then you need to live in poverty for the rest of your life with your children and their children and their children's children living in poverty their WHOLE life by the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

"BTW, I am not a liberal, I am a moderate"

Re:Liberals (3, Interesting)

Tancred (3904) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205788)

Do we really want 'em running the country? Yes, if the alternative is the current administration. In case you hadn't noticed, the world is getting smaller. We're going to have to learn to live with the rest of that world.

I'm not exactly a liberal (more all over the place, issue to issue), but I'll defend them against some really bewildering claims. Your rant, point by point:

Saving nature - I'll have to disagree with you and say this is a good thing.

Stopping business - absurd. I thought the 8 years before Bush were going pretty damn well.

Building big government - again, absurd. Bush is building big government - and huge deficits. He's setting the all-time deficit record, beating the high water mark set by his father.

Clean energy - lots of people pay extra for environmentally friendly products and services. If some of them are arguing against a certain project, they may still be better than the environmentally unconscious.

Women's rights - not sure what you're getting at there. Care to expound on that claim?

Freedom of choice - good for them, representing the majority of their constituency instead of caving to a vocal minority.

School vouchers - I'm for school vouchers. Are liberals (democrats?) against them?

Do we really care what they have to say about anything? - Sure do. The thought of a country run by the old guard of the GOP without anyone even trying to keep them honest is a frightening thought.

Process (4, Funny)

grantsellis (537978) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205528)

1. Plant wind

2. Raise wind

3. Harvest wind

4. PROFIT!

Re:Process (1)

TCM (130219) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205541)

It's

3. harvest storm!

Sheesh

Re:Process (1)

DrkShadow (72055) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205640)

No, no.. you've got it all wrong. They start off with wind seeds.

And don't forget to alternate the crop every season or you'll ruin the soil -- are they going to alternate wind and storms?...

-DrkShadow

Go for it anyway... (5, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205534)

Windmills are funky looking, sure. That section along I-10 in California is proof enough of that.

The thing is, they are quiet, clean, and often installed in places that there wouldn't be much other human habitation/recreation anyway. They're not good targets for terrorist attacks, since there's not really much to blow up, and jamming them isn't going to work either.

N.I.M.B.Y. syndrome needs to be reckoned with anyay. And yes, I do live near a power generating station. There is a Natural Gas facility that also does experimental development on the grounds, like solar, less than two miles from where I live. It's in the middle of the city, and not really close to a major industrial section. If you don't want to see it, there are three other cardinal directions to look toward. I'll take the cheap electricity, myself.

Re:Go for it anyway... (1)

Omestes (471991) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205797)

That and they kill thousands of migrating birds, quietly. And there may be other enviromental impacts, besides aethetic.

NIMBY FACTOR (4, Interesting)

trotski (592530) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205543)

This is just unbeleivable! Nantucket island is filled with greener than thou environmentalists.

Apparently, windfarms are only acceptable in places where they don't offend the rich and the green. The middle of the dessert or the middle of a farmer's field is ok... but ruining they're prestine ocean view? Unacceptable! That ruins the environment for.... umm.... seabirds... thats it, it kills seabirds.

This is rediculous, those people make me sick.

Re:NIMBY FACTOR (0, Troll)

nomadic (141991) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205688)

This is just unbeleivable! Nantucket island is filled with greener than thou environmentalists.

Really? You know everyone on Nantucket Island? They're ALL environmentalists? All of them? Amazing. It's a fair sized town you know, I'm impressed that you know everyone there, and know both their a) environmental views, and b) stance on this specific project.

Re:NIMBY FACTOR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205793)

I once knew a man from Nantucket.

Am I the only one... (4, Interesting)

mcj (21934) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205551)

...who thinks these windmills look cool? A similar controversy is taking place near where I live (except not in the water), and I don't see the problem. I wouldn't mind having one of these in my yard. Plus I could mount my DirecTV dish on top of it for great reception. :-)

I live in the midwest, where it's really flat and windy pretty much all the time. I bet wind power would really take off here,

Re:Am I the only one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205601)

I would mind one of them. I wouldn't mind a field of them. Truthfully I got to really like the idea when I saw the intro to Macross Plus. A field of these white windmills has a charm all its own. What else are we doing with unused flat land? Using it for landfills?

I live in the midwest, where it's really flat and windy pretty much all the time.

Which is funny because many farms have shelter belts (rows of trees planted to slow the wind to slow erosion) and you'd think we'd have them all over the midwest already....

Wind Energy (1)

simgod (563459) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205555)

If G W. Bush keeps falling off his Segway, we could be talking seriously about this one day

local reaction (5, Informative)

iate138 (677385) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205559)

i live on cape cod, and i am sick of the people who are protesting this. the major arguments against it consist basically of the lessening of aesthetic appeal for beach-goers and boaters. it irks me that the same people who realize the necessity of easing the power demand on the canal power plant (a vile, coal burning smoke belcher) are unwilling to take steps to find alternative energy resources. stupid rich tourists, afraid of seeing a few gulls chopped up in windmills on their way to the islands.

Environmentalist Pleasing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205566)

Pleasing an environmentalist burocrat is impossible. Just ignore them and they will go away.

--
Thanks for reading at -1.

Re:Environmentalist Pleasing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205600)

reeding ur bad speeling is unbulivabel

Ummm.... Hello? (1, Insightful)

deacon (40533) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205568)

Limousine Liberals have ALWAYS wanted the poor and the brown to take the brunt of enlightened evironmental policy.

These Elites exist to tell the rest of us how to live, not to actually follow any sort of conservation or limited consumption themselves.

The banning of DDT, for example, caused thousands of deaths for poor and brown people worldwide due to Malaria.. But Hey! Birds are more important than people!

Why is this a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention for the last 30 years??

Re:Ummm.... Hello? (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205596)

These Elites exist to tell the rest of us how to live, not to actually follow any sort of conservation or limited consumption themselves.

You know how you can identify a fanatic? By the inexplicable capitalization of words.

Re:Ummm.... Hello? (1)

Steven Blanchley (655585) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205682)

If you can't say anything to prove the original post wrong, do you suppose maybe that's because it was right? Ridiculous name-calling doesn't make you look smart.

Re:Ummm.... Hello? (1)

PetWolverine (638111) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205738)

No, ridiculous name-calling doesn't make you look smart. The grandparent post was pointing out that a major part of the original poster's argument was...ridiculous name-calling.

Thankyou, thankyou. I'll be here all week.

Re:Ummm.... Hello? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205730)

The banning of DDT, for example, caused thousands of deaths for poor and brown people worldwide due to Malaria.. But Hey! Birds are more important than people!

Maybe if it was killing all of those birds, it could kill people too. How do you know it wouldn't kill more brown people than it would save?

One problem with wind farms (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205570)

If you build them on land, they're usually in the way (not just visually, because wind farms are noisy and require a lot of surface terrain), and if you build them on water they need a foundation, and just about every kind of foundation is bad for the environment.

Re:One problem with wind farms (2, Interesting)

kuz (632280) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205711)

Correction, these structures will HELP the fish stocks. The windmills will create habitats for the sealife and prevent trawlers from ripping up the sea floor and destroying breeding grounds. While I tend to believe there will be a short term disruption of Nature during construction, the long-term benefits will outweigh it. Being a seventh generation native of Martha's Vineyard, this project is also in my backyard, the planned windmills are quite massive. I just find it very amusing that the same wilted-flower children who have been writing letters to the editor and such, pleading all of us to stop using fossil fuels are the same people protesting the windfarm the loudest. Remember folks, the definition of a conservationist, is it's someone who already owns a summer home.

Wind is good. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205572)

And personally, I like windmills. I mean, I think they look good. The so-called environmentalists resisting the installation of a wind farm anywhere just to preserve the appearance of the landscape are simply full of shit. I say push 'em out the airlock at the earliest opportunity. Of course, first we have to build the space elevator to the airlock, but IMO that should be our primary goal right now anyway...

House and Senate (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205574)

....call me crazy, but i'm thinkin those two might be a fuggin gold mine for any 'wind harvesters'....Hot-air balloon industry might like a heads-up on this too...

;-)

Re:House and Senate (1)

Hawthorne01 (575586) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205712)

Don't forget they're also an excellent source of clean-burning methane gas from all the bullsh*t present there.

Non registration link for NYT (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205577)

NYT Story [nytimes.com]

I recall.... (3, Funny)

pjdepasq (214609) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205593)

I once knew a girl from Nantucket...

Oh wait, that's related to another story....

Re:I recall.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205681)

There once was a man from Nantucket Whose d*ck was so long he could ..

The simple answer (1)

quark2universe (38132) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205602)

... is to just wait 10-20 years. By then the air will be so brown with the burning coal residue from the the electric plants, nobody will be able to see the windmills anyway.

Or build them now and avoid the impending, unavoidable air pollution problem.

Ridiculous (1)

coolmacdude (640605) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205627)

These rabid environmentalists are totally clueless about the enviro-friendliness of most energy technologies. It's not like someone is wanting to start an offshore oil operation or a huge pollutant producing coal factory. The reality is that the US is outpacing our current energy supplies, and we have to explore alternative methods to increase production. I would hardly consider a wind farm among the most harmful to the environment.

Re:Ridiculous (3, Insightful)

ApharmdB (572578) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205725)

Please don't lump all environmentalists together in such a way. These people are not environmentalists, they are rich schmucks who just want everything their way.

There are critical thinking environmentalists too. I like to think that I am one, but I know that that would be a stupid assumption to make.

Re:Ridiculous (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205750)

The reality is that the US is outpacing our current energy supplies, and we have to explore alternative methods to increase production. I would hardly consider a wind farm among the most harmful to the environment.

We can also put more effort into conservation, which is the best option.

Wind is like solar power; it's very clean, but when you put too much of it into one area it can have harmful environmental effects.

Hypocrisy (5, Insightful)

vandelais (164490) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205631)

Hypocrisy of this nature is not just emotional.

Somewhere, sometime, highly populated states are going to realize that they are not entitled to simply purchase energy production from other states without suffering the drawbacks of that production.

This is a major public policy and national security issue. There will be much more of this to come.
Regardless of the fact that there may have been energy market manipulation, states like California fail to build a power plant for decades and complain that they have to pay an 'unfair' price. Their populace is not entitled to purchase at cost that which other states take the initiative to produce to fill their own demand, tolerate risk, deal with pollution, and expend capital.

There is no obligation for other states to acquiesce to large population states' lack of discipline, foresight, and planning.

Lastly, this type of conflict is a perfect example of why we have a bicameral legislature and the benefits of the elcectoral college system.

Re:Hypocrisy (2, Insightful)

Bodrius (191265) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205781)

Why don't they deal with it the capitalist way? It's probably the only to let them negotiate the issue without getting lost in rethoric and hypocresy: Factor it all in the numbers.

You don't want power plants in your backyard? Pay a higher price, or a MUCH higher price the less "in your backyard" they are.

Use that profit to pay the neighborhoods that are willing to put up with the power plant through subsidized electricity.

As power demands of other regions, including the ones that produce the electricity, increase, it only makes sense that the only way to preserve priority and get power is to pay even more for the privilege (which would pay for more facilities). Until either side decides it's not worth it.

Re:Hypocrisy (3, Insightful)

Jerf (17166) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205801)

Somewhere, sometime, highly populated states are going to realize that they are not entitled to simply purchase energy production from other states without suffering the drawbacks of that production.

Yes, they are; the "drawbacks" that you refer to are, or should be, bundled into the price. In fact this sort of thing happens all the time, and is a perfectly normal part of capitalism. Paying for labor is nothing more and nothing less then paying somebody else for the "drawback" of having to work hard to assemble or create something.

If the "drawbacks" aren't paid for it's the seller's fault for setting the price too low, not the buyer's fault, which you try to blame.

Concentrate on the seller, not the buyer.

If we would just start researching fusion ... (1)

McAddress (673660) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205634)

At this rate, 130 or so windmills will supply 2% of the states energy. On the other hand, the 100 or so fission reactors in this country supply 20% of the country's total energy. Multiply that by at least 10 if we were to switch over to fusion, porobably even more than 10X that. That would mean that we would need at max, 50 fusion reactors in this country. With the windmills, we would need 50 farms for just that one state.

Re:If we would just start researching fusion ... (2, Funny)

nomadic (141991) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205714)

Multiply that by at least 10 if we were to switch over to fusion, porobably even more than 10X that.

Posting from the future, are we...

Wind Farms don't work (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205656)

Trouble is, wind farms don't generate much electricity. More efficient omnidirectional prototypes were tested in the 1980's but they were banned because they tended to attract and kill birds. Since the cost of electricity in the USA is rather inexpensive, the only way windmills can compete is if costs are cut in manufacturing. When manufacturing costs are skimped, quality suffers. That is why windmills don't last very long and fall apart easily. The situation is such that when the wind actually picks up and really gets the blades going, a safety mechanism locks the blades.

There's also the liability problem of broken windmill parts falling on cattle (many windmills are on farms and ranches) or even people. The huge monetary settlements further drive up the costs of windmills and force the manufacturers to skimp even more.

I know the above sounds a bit depressing but I hope this encourages some young engineers to come up with some new ideas to bring this industry back to life.

Re:Wind Farms don't work (5, Interesting)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205675)

More efficient omnidirectional prototypes were tested in the 1980's but they were banned because they tended to attract and kill birds.

Ok, theres an obvious solution to this... build a damn mesh cage around the propeller blades.

I guess this is too much of a duh solution for people to accept though, without getting a five million grant from the government to "study" it.

Re:Wind Farms don't work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205704)

More efficient omnidirectional prototypes

This is why a place like (i assume nantucket is one) Nantucket Sound is the kind of place that needs to be targeted for wind power if we're going to be using the current windmill models. We know which direction the wind is going to be blowing. The ocean tends to create systems where in some island areas like Nantucket sound the wind is always blowing inland (or is it outland? i can never remember. oh well..)

Re:Wind Farms don't work (0)

kuz (632280) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205787)

the wind's blowin sou' by sou' west,,,argh

Re:Wind Farms don't work (3, Interesting)

echucker (570962) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205804)

The bird issue is a standard one brought up by anti-wind people. In at least one instance, [windpower.org] a study proved that the turbines did not contribute to bird deaths. In the report linked, decoys were used in an attempt to draw eiders in close to the turbines, but the ducks overcame their normal social nature, and stayed at least 100m away from the turbines.

Easy solution (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205667)

Just put a nuclear power plant there instead. That should make them satisfied.

If it doesn't, say, hey, what's the problem? It isn't blocking your precious view...

The "renewable" energy sources such as Wind, Solar, and Geothermal energy don't have a lot of chance of being particularly useful. However, if they're going to be useful at ALL, people have to recognize that they're only going to be useful in *very specific places*. If "renewable" energy is to go anywhere at all, we need to recognize the places where they can run continuously and effectively, and install them there, *no* exceptions. Installing a bunch of wind farms in Houston isn't going to power anything. Installing a bunch of wind farms in a constant high-wind area like an island like Nantucket Sound could potentially power a decent area larger than Nantucket. If we don't recognize these choice spots for renewable energy and take advantage of *all* of them, and only pick and choose well, where would be convenient for the locals, Wind power is going to continue to be NOTHING more than a gimmick.

-super ugly ultraman

Re:Easy solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205789)

Icelanders disagree with you.

http://www.mfa.is/embassy/mfa.nsf/form/content.h tm l?openForm&wt=4B0130352E30352E30322E3030004C01454E 4700

Geothermal energy at 49.3% and hydroelectric at 17.9% is quite significant amount. I admit that Iceland is an exeptional place, but, it is enough to prove that renevable energy sources can be extremely useful and practical.

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205684)

Liberals? Hypocritical? Nawww...can't be true.

What would they rather have? (5, Informative)

ApharmdB (572578) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205694)

Ok, I consider myself an environmentalist and these people who bitch about wind farms really have no business claiming to be so. Their choices are according to my recent utility supplied info are along with my half-assed pissed-off descriptions:

1) Oil - Polluting
2) Coal - Seriously Polluting
3) Natural Gas - Clean compared to other fossil fuels, but still requires us to fight wars for it.
4) Nuclear - Cart toxic waste across country to bury it in Yucca Mountain. Also, BOOOM!
5) Wind - Unsightly, similar in price to fossil fuels.
6) Solar - Still too expensive in cents/kWh.
7) Biomass - Can't really increase the supply unless you want to start collecting cow farts.
8) Hydro - Most rivers that can generate hydro already are.
9) Imported Power - Mysterious Power!
10) Municipal Trash - Burning stuff is not clean.

Now, of the above choices, what should we focus on until something better becomes available? I think wind is the obvious choice. But no, they are unsightly! OMG! Everything has a negative and wind power's is pretty minor compared to the others. The land that wind power is on can also be used for other purposes such as farming or grazing.

I have a feeling that the people who whine would really like all their power to come from number 9, Imported Power. You know, that magical, free power that some poor schlub in another community has to suffer the environmental consequences for. Now, unless they want to whip out their magic fairy-wand and produce energy out of thin air, they have to use something and they should wake the hell up and realize that wind is a very good choice.

If you are interested in costs, check out the California 1996 Energy Technology Status Report Summary. [ca.gov] For a summary, it weighs in at 93 pages. Bleah.

Re:What would they rather have? (2, Informative)

VCAGuy (660954) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205769)

Coal - Seriously Polluting

I would tend to disagree with that. A few years ago, I took a tour of Curtis H. Staton energy plant, which is owned by OUC (the Orlando [Florida] Utilities Comission). This plant has won environmental awards since boiler #2 was completed in 1994(5?). Both boilers are filtered through an ABB designed system that includes everything from cyclonic filtering, to electrostatic precipitators, to lime wash, to a final-stage HEPA filter. The plant's exhaust is 99.6% CO2 and H2O vapor, making it one of the cleanest in the world. To this plant, Lake Underhill residents acutally said "YIMBY."

The only real argument I see is... (4, Interesting)

XaXXon (202882) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205716)

They're going to use public land (term used loosely, as it's actually water covered land) for a private, for-profit organization. Either a government venture (which I'm not that interested in), or a non-profit organization would be better suited for using public land.

The NIMBY factor is obviously huge here. The part of the article that really stated everything right on the nose was on the last page (did you get there? I did)


To them, the national illusion that you can have electricity, clean air, a stable climate and independence from foreign oil without paying a steep price is ludicrous.


Where "them" are the local residents screaming NIMBY!

There's another great example discussing a local oil tanker that leaked oil into the sound. It basically did far more damage than any wind farm could ever do.

Many of the complaints are rediculous.. The oil lubrication oil will leak from the wind mills and pollute the sound. Birds will die. Arguments that just aren't thought through.

Personally, I'm with some other people here that say windmills aren't particularly ugly, and to me it's like coffee or beer. I didn't like the taste of either initially, but once I realized what they did, they became much more pallitable. Even if I don't really like looking at a siteline spattered with windmills, I know that they're creating electricity in an environmentally friendly way.. and that makes them much more acceptable to me.

Are you dense? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6205721)

The whole reason you earn enough money to live in Nantucket is to live life the way you want.

And when you're that rich, you're subject to "noblesse oblige", which means, you'll help the poor sods to make sure they stay the hell away from your house in Nantucket.

I *get* why they feel that way; if I had their money, I've feel the same way.

They can't win.. (1)

-tji (139690) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205726)

Fighting these windmills seems a bit Quixotic to me..

Cliff Notes:
Quixotic [m-w.com]
Don Quixote [who2.com]

As much as I have amired Cronkite... (1)

UrGeek (577204) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205737)

...thru the years, I have to ask him consider the plight of residents in the country next to me (Bastrop, SW of Austin) who have been fighting Alcoa's latest lignite strip mine for years and have lost. And this at a time when our air is Texas has both acids and mercury and the South Texas Nuclear Power Plant is shutdown with new leaks of primary coolant. I say ring the coasts with wind power! Put them on MY block, please!

google's link works for us non-registerers (1)

oskie (324496) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205746)

This might be old news too, but if you search for this article on news.google.com you'll notice that they have a link to the NY Times site that doesn't require registration. The URL has some extra parameters in it, like partner=GOOGLE.

Maybe Slashdot should become a NY Times partner too. :)

My backyard (0)

Ilvatar (667201) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205783)

I wouldn't give a sh*t if someone built 75000 wind mills in my backyard. Hell I would welcome it. Why do people keep bitching about it? It looks kewl (it moves .. it beats grass or sand!) it prevents annoying pigeons from waking me up in the morning (it'll scare them off) and it gives off POWER. And don't give me any of that 'it spoils the view'-crap. Or the 'those things are noisy'-scam .. they're not any more noisy than the wonderful highway next to my door!

Dear "environmentalist" NIMBYs everywhere, (4, Interesting)

gsfprez (27403) | more than 11 years ago | (#6205798)

GO FUCK YOURSELVES.

Sincerely,
The rational libertarian, moderate and liberal people of the United States who want to see clean, cheap energy so as to save our environment and power our lives at the same time

We have the same people living here in SoCal - who don't want to widen freeways - or build rail systems for that matter, and prevent all forms of growth. They would rather increase the pollution by having cars running in their least-efficent mode (stop and go traffic) instead of them zipping around at 60 MPH (when cars are by far the most efficient).

Here in Los Angeles, the number of hybrids are growing exponentially, with next year's hybrid SUVs on the way (Ford Escape Hybrid), Near-Zero Emmission Vehicles (NZEV's) like the Prius, the Insight, and Escape are going to be the rage of Los Angeles. SoCal car dealers cant keep hybrids in stock here!

We are the largest buyers of NZEV's and with increasing numbers of NZEV's, freeways are the cheapest, least-polluting form of transportation. Rail systems cost far more to build, upkeep and power (central power plants). NZEV's lose near zero energy in transportation (unlike electricity), and they do not require polluting central-plants to produce electricity, they simply use the jouels in gasoline extremely efficiently, and easily can be converted to hydrogen thereafter (hydrogen burning ICE + electrcity storage may be cheapest, most effective means of vehicle power instead of fuel cells which are very expensive to make and power)

The same NIMBY's are crushing the addition of an Orange County airport which would take the load off of LAX, which is 60 miles from Orange County - causeing all those people to DRIVE their cars (read: clog the freeways), and increase current poolution and congestion - not to mention watsting about 2 hours every time you want to fly out of SoCal.

I swear, i just want to put you fscking NIBMY's on a boat and sink the ship sometimes. YOU ALL SUCK!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>