Thursday, April 27, 2006

Dems Angry At Kennedy Over Cape Wind Fight

The fight over Cape Wind is getting louder, with a number of traditional Democrats refusing to shy away from a fight with Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA). For more, click here.

We noted Greenpeace's new video last week. For more on opposition to wind power, click here.

And for more on Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s activities against Cape Wind, click here and here.

Thanks to Instapundit for the pointers.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

7 comments:

Paul Primavera said...

There is yet hope for our Republic! This is indeed good news that more and more Democrats are facing reality.

And no, Republicans haven't been much better. But now the twin crises of energy supply and environmental disaster will (hopefully) force both major parties to accept the inescapable conclusion that we must use ALL our available resources (nuclear, wind, clean coal, solar, tidal, hydro, geothermal, etc.) to the maximum extent possible to relieve our dependency on mineral slime from lands of Islamic fascism.

KM said...

Wind power produces electricity. Oil is used for transport and heat. Cape Wind has nothing to do with our escapades in the middle east.

Anonymous said...

In response to KM, Cape Wind would be the exception. The power produced would displace oil-fired generation.

KM said...

Oil fuels about 16% of the electricity generation in Massachusetts (nationally it is 2.5%), and that oil is generally the sludge left over from gasoline refinement. Even if Cape Wind "displaced" some of that burning, it would not affect the demand (since it comes from gas) at all.

Jim Hopf said...

Oil is not used much to generate electricity, but natural gas very much is. It's reasonably accurate to say that new wind, or nuclear, would largely replace gas (as well as coal, in nuclear's case).

Whereas we used to get all of our gas from domestic or friendly sources, this is rapidly becoming not the case. Both North America and Europe are quickly becoming depleted of gas, and exports from other parts of the world are going to rise rapidly in the near future. Guess where the overwhelming majority of the remaining gas reserves are. Russia and the Middle East.

Simply put, all the bad things about oil are about to be true of gas as well. All the negative geopolitical effects, resource wars, trade deficeits, terrorism, etc.... And this serious imported gas problem definitely would be alleviated by using wind and nuclear (as opposed to gas) to generate electricity.

Then of course, there are all the ways to make synthetic vehicle fuels using nuclear or (perhaps) wind, be it hydrogen or some synthetic liquid hydrocarbon fuel. And finally, there are plug-in hybrid cars, which are just around the corner, which will be able to travel ~85% of their miles on pure electric power, with no loss of convenience for the user.

KM said...

You are right, Jim, that the geopolitics of natural gas (which currently provides about 15% of our electricity) are following the same pattern as those for oil. My response that Cape Wind has nothing to do with our escapades in the middle east should have (was meant to have) been specifically limited to the "mineral slime" referred to by Paul.

All over the web, the Cape Wind issue is being linked with the high price of gasoline, which remains nonsense.

Paul Primavera said...

Jim H. and KM,

Thank you for the correction. I agree that Cape Wind has little if anything to do with gasoline prices. But everytime we refuse to do something for our own energy independence, however indirectly we make ourselves more reliant on foreign sources of energy that are mainly fossil.

I wonder how much diesel fuel is used to transport oil or coal to fuel power plants that the Cape Wind project could displaced. Certainly one could argue that this is but a miniscule portion of our petroleum consumption, but again, everytime we refuse to do something for ourselves, we make ourselves more dependent on others.

We could as a nation use wind and solar power to occupy the 20% niche in US electrical supply that nuclear occupies now, and increase nuclear to 70 or 80%. This would vastly reduce our dependency on natural gas for electrical generation as well as reduce diesel consumption for transporting coal to coal fired power plants, as well as supplant coal altogether.

We also could replace our diesel trains with electric ones powered from a nuclear - wind supplied electrical grid. France already has 175 mph trains powered by its nuclear reactors in exactly this fashion. We could convert passenger and cargo ships to nuclear energy using the US nuclear navy as an example; this also would reduce diesel consumption.

Again, none of these might have a direct effect on gasoline prices, but every single measure we take for energy self-sufficiency and environmental preservation is a good one.

Thankfully, both Democrats and Republicans are beginning to relaize this.

BTW, Tom Golisano (who ran as an Independent for NY governor in the previous election and is now a Republican) opposes wind farms near Rochester, NY because of some of the same reasons that Democrat Ted Kennedy and Republican Gov. Mitt Romney opposes them off Cape Cod. That's simply stupid NIMBYism. I would be more than happy if more wind farms were built near Syracuse, NY where I live, and another nuke or two added to the Nine Mile and Fitzpatrick site.

Use of more wind and more nukes means use of less coal, less natural gas and less petroleum in the long run. And THAT means the obviation of wars of foreign adventure in lands of Islamic fascism.

And THAT's the GOOD news that both Republicans and Democrats are hopefully comprehending.