Skip to main content

View Diary: Cape Cod Kennedys: I'm coming after you next (294 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not a good idea (4+ / 2-)
    Recommended by:
    joeesha, Agathena, poemless, kittania
    Hidden by:
    floundericiousMI, alizard

    I don't like this at all.  I support the idea of renewable energy, but this will have a horrible impact on wildlife and the environment.  I feel the beauty of our environment is also a natural resource which should be protected.  Obviously Jereme a Paris has a vested financial and personal interest in pushing these ugly things on the rest of us.  He tries to cloak it by taking aim at the "Cape Code Kennedy's".

    Well, this will impact a lot more people than just the Kennedys.  I think we should look into geothermal energy and also do the unthinkable, reduce the massive and disproportionate use of energy by the US in relation to the rest of the world.

    These things are ugly, they will tear migrating birds to shreds, they will result in contaminatino of pristine seawaters and fresh lakes during construction, and I don't feel this is a good idea at all.

    "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."-FDR

    by Michigan Paul on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 03:10:03 PM PDT

    •  That is somewhat a narrow-minded view. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      besieged by bush, ER Doc

      Farmers here in Ireland have the same objections ie: it will bring down property prices, it will kill the views (they don't seem to care about the birds though) It's a bit rich when you consider that they contribute so much to the devastation of the soil through their cattle, the misuse of water etc..
      We need a panoply of renewable energies and this is viable.

      Good diary Jerome, congratulations.

      It is only during an eclipse that the man on the moon has a place in the sun, George.

      by Asinus Asinum Fricat on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 03:21:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  what the hell ... ? (warning: snark) (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      splashy, besieged by bush, RiaD, ER Doc

      So you would rather have your view improved by open pit coal mining and the acid rain from coal-fired power plants? What about some lovely nuclear reactor cooling towers as a constant reminder that the entire area could be rendered uninhabitable if god forbid something were to go very wrong.

      I just get disgusted whenever people bring up the "but oh the view! and oh the birds!" arguments. Every single other form of energy generation with probably the exception of solar is more ugly and more environmentally degrading. I bet more birds died in the Exxon-Valdez spill than have ever been killed be wind turbines. Hydroelectric generation damns are driving salmon towards extinction in the Northeast, and I don't see many complaining about that "clean" form of energy.  Plus do your homework. They now use slower turning turbines in response to the bird issue. Yes there were initial environmental problems with wind turbines when they were very first beginning to be used, but they've fixed all those problems, but still people cry "the birds! the birds!" because they read some article in our dearly beloved and always honest and completely factual mainstream media, and never bothered to check things on their own.

      Geothermal is a good idea, but it's not going to solve things on its own. Some places are better suited for it than others, just like some places are better suited to wind turbines than others.

      Maybe instead of wasting your time attacking Jerome's character, you could go do some reaserch instead.

      if global warming is a moral issue, then Gore has a moral obligation to run for president

      by IAblue on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 04:18:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Troll Rating (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      splashy, besieged by bush, ER Doc

      Because you've not bothered to do even the SLIGHTEST BIT OF RESEARCH...

      You obviously have not followed the LONG SERIES OF DIARIES detailing Wind Energy and policy by Jerome..

      You've repeated a bunch of vague, baseless, critical tripe without providing any substantiation.

      Bird kill is much lower than sensationalist eco-freaks posit (the blades are NOT moving that drop the "tear birds to shreds" crap)... contamination of pristine seawaters and fresh lakes....?  Surely you jest...along some of the most heavily freighter-/tanker-trafficked coastlines in the maritime world???  

      These things are ugly, they will tear migrating birds to shreds, they will result in contamination of pristine seawaters and fresh lakes during construction, and I don't feel this is a good idea at all.

      All we're left with is that you think they're ugly...and that you don't feel this is a good idea at all.

      So I'll give you one of my troll rates and this brief explanation...

      It is amazing how much can be accomplished when you don't care who gets the credit - Harry Truman
      PoliticalCompass Scale: -2.13, -2.97

      by floundericiousMI on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 04:35:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bats HAVE been killed in high numbers (0+ / 0-)

        by wind turbines along an Appalachian ridge--documented recently, but I don't have time to research it now.  For Kossacks who consider themselves reality based, there are an awful lot of true believers on this thread who don't seem to care that there may/will be other environmental impacts that could be mitigated IF the appropriate research is done.  Pooh poohing those concerns is not the scientific approach. In the meantime other true believers, like our mayor here in 'green' Chicago, evidently wants to put experimental fast moving wind turbines on Northerly Island, our 'new' nature park (yes, the one that used to be an airport).  Well, I guess that's a good place to 'study' bird and bat kills as any, IF they are willing to do well designed studies.

        •  what scale turbines? (0+ / 0-)

          How large are they?

          Remember...the application IN QUESTION is a VERY large, utility-scale wind turbine...the rotor rpms are going to be much lower than a smaller scale wind turbine and harnessed through gearboxes inside the mechanical housing...

          We're also talking about a wind farm at sea, not on a ridgeline, not in a forest, not in a sea.

          I love how the common answer to this is to just kill the wind energy idea...

          Did anyone consider other things that could help reduce the (remote) chances of bird/bat/flying thing kill?  How about putting a small device on the end of the blades, similar to those put on semi-trucks, which would "whistle" while the blade is moving and emit a range of frequencies that would make it far more noticable to bats/birds/etc.?  

          If the research shows that certain applications are more prone to killing flying things (that is, more prone than natural predators, disease, etc.), then let's see what we can do to give the flying things a bit more ability to avoid them.

          It is amazing how much can be accomplished when you don't care who gets the credit - Harry Truman
          PoliticalCompass Scale: -2.13, -2.97

          by floundericiousMI on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 08:56:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Mich (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      poemless, joanneleon, kittania

      There's no reason at all that you should have been troll rated.  It has been a long-standing problem here at DKos for those who disagree with the dominant discourse - even if they post in an intelligent and polite manner.  In this case, I agree with you - but I have said the same thing to those with whom I disagreed.  I, for one, would like to look the gift horse in the mouth a little more closely.

      With regards to the comment about Jerome a Paris - it would be better if you made such a comment in a more neutral tone and in a comment directly linked to one of his.  He's very upfront about his relationship to the industry.

      •  Troll-ratings (5+ / 0-)

        There was nothing in my comment which deserved a troll-rating.  I pointed out they were ugly, could harm wildlife, and that the diarist had a direct business interest in seeing these things constructed.

        The fact that people can troll-rate such a comment is indicative of a Stalinistic mindset in here, as well as a herding instinct.  One can not question some of the prominent diarists in here I guess.

        "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."-FDR

        by Michigan Paul on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 05:35:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I Just Checked Your User ID - (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Michigan Paul, kittania

          You've been around for a long, long time.
          From the beginning. (Which has a quasi-religious tone to it)

          Take a look at a diary I posted last spring.  

          Look at all the obscenities I was called.  And who got troll-rated?  It does not give me cause for optimism were this side of the aisle to gain power.  Tolerance is a rare element.

          •  Yes I have (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Agathena, johnnygunn, kittania

            I have been around for a long time, and I feel this incident is definite a reason for Kos to look into these people who use troll-ratings in an abusive manner.  Tolerance is apparently not a virtue practiced by many in here.

            "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."-FDR

            by Michigan Paul on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 05:51:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Mich Paul (0+ / 0-)

              With all due respect, this is why, when I troll-rate someone, I post an explanation.  It leaves a place where the poster can engage me if they feel I'm wrong... it ALSO leaves a place where the other TUs and Admins can have their say (by Troll-Rating me).  

              I don't hide from my opinions or the people to whom I direct them.  If you feel I'm misinterpreting your words or your intent, then say so and we can discuss... just press 'reply' and I'll listen, Paul!

              It is amazing how much can be accomplished when you don't care who gets the credit - Harry Truman
              PoliticalCompass Scale: -2.13, -2.97

              by floundericiousMI on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 09:09:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Who says they are ugly? Compared to what? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Compared to a coal power plant? Compared to a strip mine? Compared to an oil derrick?

          But then, I knew a guy who liked the look of an oil derrick. Beauty and Ugliness is not something you can "point out" ... in either case, you are pointing in, to your own reaction.

          It seems as if people find them attractive or ugly based on what they personify. If your best friend died in a joy ride when you were in primary school, and you are not enamored of the auto-uber-alles transportation system, and you are not keen to see millions of people become environmental refugees, they can personify the possibility of a different way of life, and be beautiful things indeed.

          Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson, and D.P. Young. 2004. Summary of anthropogenic causes of bird mortality. Proceedings of the 2002 International Partner's in Flight Conference, Monterrey, California. Per 10,000 fatalities:
          <1, wind turbines <br>250 communication towers
          700 pesticides

          700 vehicles

          800 High tension lines
          1000 Other
          1000 Cats
          5500 Buildings/Windows

          so wind turbines have a long way to go before they are more dangerous than the High tension lines that carry the power that they generate.

          OH15: IN: Kilroy for Congress. OUT:Deborah Pryce

          by BruceMcF on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 11:04:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  while I think your comment is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ER Doc, MarketTrustee

      going to be troll-rated out of existence as it deserves, I'm going to respond anyway.

      There is no such thing as a power source that doesn't cause some environmental damage.

      All a responsible person can do about this is find green energy sources that do as little damage as possible.

      You think it's possible to do the drilling and construction for geothermal with zero environmental damage? Really? Or are you just afraid that a windfarm in your back yard will cause you to lose a few K in property values?

      Yes, we need conservation. Yes, we need geothermal.

      But above all, we need energy sources that don't dump shit into the air and WE NEED THEM NOW!.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 04:57:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My comment (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Agathena, joanneleon, kittania, gatorcog

        Why does it deserve to be troll-rated out of existence.  I said I don't like this idea.  I pointed out the proponents business interest in pushing these devices on us.  If he has been up-front about it, fine.  But that does not take away from the fact he has a financial gain to make if these projects move forward.

        "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."-FDR

        by Michigan Paul on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 05:37:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  a person who repeats (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          besieged by bush

          anti-environmental talking points uncritically and presents a position that is indistinguishable from that of Big Oil on wind power has to expect to get hammered as a troll around here.

          A person who personally attacks wind power proponents simply because they're professionally involved with wind power and take pride in the fact (as they should) has further reason to expect to be considered a troll. At least here, I'm sure there'd be far more tolerance for this on RedState or LittleGreenFootballs.

          You think that nobody who has professional expertise in a field should share it with us simply because he makes money off his expertise? That's largely the point of getting professional expertise. The alternative is that we all sit around sharing our collective ignorance.

          OK, I've seen your share of collective ignorance, I'm now going to go on to read comments by people who know what the hell they are talking about.

          Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

          by alizard on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 06:59:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Look ... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Plan9, javelina, splashy, floundericiousMI
          1.  I do not agree with the troll rates.
          1.  You might want to think about looking at and responding to those who explained their troll rates. IMHO, you displayed some serious ignorance about wind power in your comment -- that merited strong reaction but not troll rate.  Ignorance how:  extent to which birds are at risk (can we suggest getting rid of windows ...) and not addressing the question of wind vs other power systems in terms of pollution/environmental impact.  The EROI of wind is excellent, bird risk exists but can be mitigated through good design and good plannning/placement, and the pollution/environmental impact is a fraction of any other power production options.
          1.  IMHO, Jerome merits some serious respect on this. He HAS NEVER hidden, in anyway/shape/form, that he has a financial role in windpower.  Throwing out that one should question his financial interests in this is either, with all due respect, simply because you have never bothered to look at one of these discussions before or because you want to fling whatever dirt you can, hoping some of it would stick.

          Now, I am a big believer in the power of conservation and reducing use (through efficiency, changed usage patterns, etc), wind would still remain a valuable path to being able to shut down coal power plants unless we are talking about returning to a pre-industrial world, in which case you are advocating a rapid die off of perhaps 5 billion people.

          •  Well said (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            besieged by bush

            I do understand your objection to my troll-rating and I do understand how badly it stings to voice your opinion and be slapped down (look way back in MY comment history and see a few where I've got 20 or 40 ratings and the average is 1.4!)

            My problem with this is that it smacked of being a "concern troll" post.  I objected for the reasons I listed.  

            The poster has come back on and attempted to clarify...and, after reading it, I stand by the troll rate.

            I DO have the option of retracting it and apologizing, if I've misunderstood - I've done that, as well, when I've troll rated someone without this case I stand where I am.

            It is amazing how much can be accomplished when you don't care who gets the credit - Harry Truman
            PoliticalCompass Scale: -2.13, -2.97

            by floundericiousMI on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 09:04:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  FYI ... (0+ / 0-)

              I might disagree ... but I also understand.  I might "disagree" but do not argue that there is "no merit" in the troll rate.  If I thought "no merit", I'd do a recommend to balance.

              You explained why -- which is key to me when troll rating someone who is not simply a Rethug troll.  And, I appreciate that you posted a note to me.

              If we still had the 1-3 option, I would probably would have given a "1" for unproductive or, if being generous, a "2" for being marginal.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site