Glenn and you have set up a straw man argument. You have set up a position that is easy to refute (rich, hypocritical environmentalists are opposing an alternative energy project because its in their backyard).
Howvever, opposition also comes from boaters and fisherman -- people who *use* the sound -- as it is from waterfront property owners. And some of us our republicans and/or libertarians, who don't buy in to alarmist global warming anyway.
The real issue is a lack of private property rights in Nantucket Sound. Why should we let a private company build 130 450-foot turbines over a 25 square mile area of public land?
Who is to say that boaters and fisherman value the sound more than a private developer -- who most lefties think are "greedy" and "profit-seeking" anyway)?
The state is a poor steward of public lands -- and water. The lack of clearly defined public property rights in Nantucket Sound is potentially letting a private developer appropriate a huge chunk of public land at no cost -- so that the private developer can make a profit.
Thanks for bringing that up.
As you might tell from other posts, I'm generally opposed to the "hypocrite" argument as well...
As one who has been a nuclear reactor operator and involved in the construction of nuclear and coal power plants throughout our nation there is no good solution to producing power which, if we are to maintain our standard of living, is needed. NIMBYism is everywhere and each method to product power has drawbacks/unintended consequences. The wind power facility outside of Livermore, CA supposedly was noisy and caused a reduction in local dairies milk production. The turbine blades also killed migratory birds. A peaking gas fired facility near my home was attacked because it didn’t fit the rural nature of our area. Coal fired plants concentrate potentially harmful compounds and some radioactive isotopes since trace amounts of anything are concentrated when thousands of tons of coal is burned. Scrubbers and bag houses limit this, but over time it does build up. The new design for nuclear plants is extremely safe, but I-131 still can be released and well as other isotopes from off gassing and of course there is the waste disposal problem. Thermal Depolymerization (TDP) is producing oil from organic waste, but it has produced a noxious odor as well in the area of the one existing plant, but the process has the potential to resolve our landfill problems if they are allowed to be built at existing landfills and not charged for the raw materials. I could go on, but the point is that as of now there is no correct answer to the NIMBY question. But I do find it interesting that many, who want/approve of imposing rules on me and my land, become NIMBYs when it impacts them. The really sad thing is that this situation has not been raised in detail in the 08 election politics to provoke a national debate. When our health and/or our economy/standard of living is possibly in jeopardy, isn’t it time now to decide what is acceptable for future energy needs. An honest, transparent debate is needed.
I tend to go to the other extreme in which I like the idea of distributed generation where people produce their own power in their back yard!
hey - maybe I can get a backyard coal burning steam generator! - just kidding - anyway I live in an apartment block so I guess I need the grid and it's power supply
We're also renters, so we can't do too much. We've not lived in this new place long enough to know what our monthly utilities budget is, but once I'll have a better feel for it I'll likely sign up with a "green" power option. Unfortunately I think it's not quite like the system that Oregon (where we used to live) has where you could actually choose between power companies and one of those choices was a company that produced primarily emissions-free power. Here you have to go with the one power company that serves you and then you're allowed to make a donation to them in exchange for a promise of adding more wind capacity in the future. Hmmph.
The in-laws are considering solar, though! Makes sense since they're in SoCal. Unfortunately, local laws still prevent net metering. Hard to believe that all these years after it's become an issue, many municipalities still don't allow net metering.
Commenting by HaloScan
