Skip to main content

The Daily Show on Cape Wind

Too funny for words:



Thanks to WattHead for the pointer.

Comments

Rod Adams said…
Now that was funny!

In defense of the rest of the people who are opposed to the project, however, there are many reasons other than spoiling views why they are worried.

I have actually spent some time out on the water very close to the area where the wind turbines will be built. Their presence would have had a detrimental effect on our ability to move through the water since we were on a sailboat.

Though there have been people harnessing the wind for power in the sound for hundreds of years, the Cape Wind project has somehow convinced some people that it has a right to take that wind from those people. (Sailing in a wind farm would be exceedingly frustrating because of all of the turbulence and reduction in energy of the wind.)

Another group of people that are opposed to Cape Wind are the fishermen who have been working the prolific sound for generations. They are not sure what the effect will be, but they are pretty sure that massive construction projects for foundations and transmission infrastructure will not have the effect of making their fishing grounds more productive. They are also worried about the vast increase in navigational hazards especially for conditions of reduced visibility (fog).

The fact is that massive wind farms are a classic case of "tragedy of the commons". Their success is based on a small group taking what used to be public property (views, fishing grounds, wind) and turning into private property without compensating the public.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…