BREAKING NEWS: US Federal Government Approves First Offshore Wind Farm

[Nathanael]

It's done:


It has finally happened: the United States federal government has approved the construction of the Cape Wind project, the country's first offshore wind farm.

Cape Wind has been suspended in a series of reviews, allegations, and political posturing for eight years. Yet, US Secretary of Interior, Ken Salazar will bring that to an end with his announcement of approval.

Link: http://www.energyboom.com/wind/breaking-news-us-federal-government-approves-first-offshore-wind-farm

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Great news!! May it be the first of many!!

I think they beautify the view ...with the knowledge that they create clean, renewable energy.

[Peregrine Took]

3. If only MIchaelangelo was alive to paint that "beautiful" view.... n/t

[FBaggins]

4. I'd bet that the 2nd image is from someone opposed to the project.

There's no way they will appear anythin CLOSE to that large from the shore.

[Vogon_Glory]

7. Agreed. Even had the turbines already been on-site

Agreed. Even had the Cape Wind turbines already been on-site, they'd look a lot SMALLER from any shoreline perspective. The only way that they'd appear as big as they do in the images would be if someone was on a nearby boat.

[Statistical]

14. Here is a more realistic projection.

[NYC_SKP]

16. True, this may be a very long telephoto shot.

I've been told that the turbines would be about the size of your thumb held out at arm's length against the horizon.





"Build it, build the Cape Wind Project. Right out there."



:applause:

.


:patriot:

[FBaggins]

43. I'd guess that it's even less than your thumb at arm's length.

440 feet at five miles is (unless my Trig is rusty) a bit less than one degree of arc.

[NYC_SKP]

47. My thumb, sideways, appears to displace about two degrees, so....

I'm gonna have to agree!

:thumbsup:

[Vogon_Glory]

2. Common Sense Triumphs Over NIMBYism

I see the approval of the Cape Wind turbine project as a triumph of common sense over NIMBYism. To be sure, the turbines will be seen from Cape Cod and Martha's Vinyard shores--on those rare days when fog, rain, or cold isn't discouraging strollers from walking on the shore and looking on the water.

I also have difficulty sympathizing with the local Native Americans' arguments against the turbines at this point. The turbine site had already been desecrated by trawling nets, dragging anchors, the occasional dredge, and heaven knows what else. There are other sacred sites far more deserving of preservation.

Building the wind farm would also be good for the Bay State's image. It's one thing to be actively green; it's quite another to appear to be hypocritical. But now that the Cape Wind project moves forward, Massachusetts residents won't have to writhe in embarrassment when Texans mention THEIR numerous wind turbines and pointedly ask Bay Staters why they haven't made a similar sacrifice.

[Nathanael]

6. Great Points All the Way Around

I couldn't agree with you more. Plus, this approval should open the gates for offshore wind in the U.S. I think many developers who even thought about creating an offshore wind farm in the U.S. put a full stop those ideas when they witnessed the mess Cape Wind had to endure -- eight years of bickering, hold-ups, new grievances, political filibustering. No business person would want to get involved in such an industry. However, once construction starts in Nantucket Sound, I believe the industry will heat up quickly.

[Nihil]

67. Excellent points.

> a triumph of common sense over NIMBYism.

K'd & R'd for the good news.

:thumbsup:

[Justitia]

5. Actually, I'd rather have this in MY backyard, than Nantucket Sound.

We have wind farms here in West Texas and I have also visited the wind farms in CA, multiple times - I think they look beautiful in desert locations.

I have spent lots of time on Nantucket Sound and I am heartbroken that the oceanscape will be inflicted with this, I think it is a mistake.
That is a massively active sea area and one of the most gorgeous East Coast water areas.
Very sad.

Hell, I'd rather have them in our Gulf of Mexico, and lets fill up the desert areas where they look majestic.

BTW, my house is 100% wind powered and I pay a premium for it.

[Viking12]

8. Sadly, you've been hoodwinked.

The site is far enough off shore that the windmills will hardly be visible.

[Justitia]

9. Hardly. I have sailed that region extensively, know it well. Only 5 miles from shore.

I have spent a lot of time on that water, for years. I know this spot exactly. It will be VERY visible from shore.

Putting aside the scarring of the oceanscape and the loss to those who enjoy actively USING those waters, why does it not bother anyone that we are talking about the corporate privatization and seizure of what is now PUBLIC PROPERTY?

[kristopher]

11. I know that spot exactly also.

And you are full of it. At 5 miles they will be matchstick sized, white sticks on the horizon. Most days they won't even be visible because the natural haze from the water vapor obstructs the view.

Cape Wind is going to LEASE the land, just as any other developer does when they use public land.

Get over it, you lost.

[Statistical]

12. Kris. Classy as ever. You are aware it is possible to get your point across without being an ass?

You could for example just post a simulation like this one:

[kristopher]

18. I understand your kinship with those who spreading misinformation...

But I don't share it.

[Statistical]

19. I actually am for the cape wind project.

Maybe you have mistaken me for someone else.
I also debunked some of that misinformation by showing the impact from shore is minimal.

I was commenting on your inability to rebut anything by anyone without being an ass about it.

[kristopher]

21. And I'm commenting on your constant attempts to spread pronuclear falsehoods.

[Statistical]

22. Strange how you feel the need to bring nuclear into everything.

Still that had nothing to do with the fact that you lack the ability to debate an issue on the merits without being an ass.

[kristopher]

23. I don't consider the calling out people who are DELIBERATELY misleading people

...being an ass.

I can certainly understand why you would think so, however.

[Statistical]

25. How do you know the person you responded to was DELIBERATELY doing anything

That person may genuinely feel that way or feels the the qualitative costs of the project (view, boating, recreation) are higher than you do or the person may simply be misinformed or partially informed.

Strange that you assume anyone who has a view different than you is deliberately misinforming others.

[kristopher]

26. Again: you are the right person to complain...

[Statistical]

27. I wasn't complaining. Just pointing out you can't ever disagree with ANYONE

on this forum on any topic without reducing yourself to insults and personal attacks.

Don't you ever get tired of that. :rofl:

Personally I think the concerns over Cape Wind are overblown. It is a valuable resources and should be developed. You don't have to be an ass just because people disagree with you though.

[kristopher]

29. I don't mind disagreements. I just don't like false claims like you do.

[Statistical]

30. I corrected his/her false claims. I just did it without being an ass.

Strange you can't see that.

[joshcryer]

51. You are not going to get civil responses from that guy.

I've tried for almost a year to be civilized and attempt to calm the vitriol. It's not happening with certain posters here. The best thing you can do is alert when they're really out of line. In this instance the behavior does not warrant an alert, however.

[Justitia]

13. Your post tells me you know nothing of Nantucket Sound.

Your comments just highlight your ignorance and hatefulness.

But you just keep working for that single corporation to gobble up our public waterways for private gain.

[kristopher]

15. And your post tells us all that you have zero regard for the truth.

[Justitia]

17. Is your house 100% wind powered? Mine is. I am a proponent of wind power.

And I pay through the nose for it. The majority of power consumers are not willing to pay what I pay.

Why don't you ask about the experiences of those who have actually lived through the process?

I live in TX, we have our own grid and our own beautiful wind farms - ON LAND.

Whatever cost basis they are quoting for this project, multiply by at least five-fold.

It is INCREDIBLY expensive and our wind providers have severe financial problems and that is even with the benefit of our own grid.

Why would you turn over one of the most useful and beautiful waterways in the US to a private company to reap profit with a windfarm the size of Manhattan?

It is very, very expensive and not at all worth the loss associated with the location this corporation wants to take over.

[kristopher]

20. More bullshit.

I have no idea if you are truthful about the claims related to your personal life.

I am sure you are truly expressing your feelings.

However your claims of fact regarding the wind farm are subject to being examined and they fail the truth test.

[Justitia]

24. Why don't you back that up w/some facts? I live in the # 1 wind state in the nation.

Or are you ignorant of that too? Obviously you are ignorant of the role that Texas plays in wind power, so quit calling ME a liar.

The largest wind farm in the world is in TX. We have many, many windfarms here, we are the largest producer and operate our own grid.

Once again, I am 100% wind powered, I want MORE windfarms in my backyard.

I live with every aspect of wind power, every day.

I also can use common sense. Common sense says windfarms do not belong in the public waterways of Nantucket Sound.

Why are you so invested in this corporation seizing the use of this public property?

I don't have to live in MA to appreciate what is at stake.

[kristopher]

28. No corporation is "seizing" anything - that is a Koch Brothers talking point.

They are leasing it in a standard arrangement. You have provided a steady stream of false information when the truth is very easy to ascertain. Why?

[Justitia]

31. I don't give a crap about "Koch brothers" whoever they are. I am a proponent of open waterways.

And a proponent of land-based windfarms.

I hate offshore drilling & drilling in ANWR, although I have never been there, I understand the need to protect it - FOREVER.

I can have all these opinions at the same time, quite naturally.

[kristopher]

32. Cape Wind does not impinge on open waterways.

That isn't an "opinion" it is stating a false fact.

Horseshoe Shoals is too shallow for commercial vessels and too choppy because of the shallow depth for many pleasure craft to spend much time there. If pleasure craft want the chop they can use Horseshoe Shoals with no restrictions. If they are afraid of hitting the 15 foot diameter towers spaced 1/2 a mile apart they shouldn't be out there in the first place.

[Justitia]

33. Are you a sailor? I am. A windfarm the size of Manhattan in Nantucket Sound most definitely

"impinges". How could you think otherwise? I am flabbergasted by that.

Seriously, have you sailed these waters or spent much time in this region? I don't know how you could continue to have that opinion if you did.

This waterway is one of our national treasures, I urge you to spend time there - ON THE WATER - before cementing your opinion of this particular project.

It is heartbreaking.

[kristopher]

34. It interferes with your yachting?

Oh, excuse me all to fucking hell.

[Justitia]

35. oh brother. Pointless. Yeah, everyone who loves the Nat'l Seashore & it's waters have yachts.

Why have open waters anywhere? Let's fill the oceans with platforms and turbines!

:eyes:

I'm done.

[FBaggins]

37. A sailor? I suppose you're the only one?

Or have you occasionally noticed another boat out there?

[Justitia]

38. Uh, is that supposed to be a serious question?

[FBaggins]

39. Yes.

A tongue in cheek question, but a a serious point.

A 15' stationary object every half mile to a mile is hardly a problem. If you get five miles from shore, the average vessel is at least three times that length and moving. Lacking the 400+ foot "mast," they're also harder to see.

And yes, I've spent years on the water. Learned to sail about 20 miles from there.

[Justitia]

40. I'm a proponent of open waterways, don't know what else to tell you.

If you don't mind sailing around man-made obstacles in our oceans and seaways, well, guess we simply feel very differently.

[FBaggins]

41. No... you're really not.

You're in favor of limiting waterways to manmade objects that you like... and not manmade objects that you would prefer not to deal with.

If you don't mind sailing around man-made obstacles in our oceans and seaways

You mean like bouys and other boats? Do it all the time.

So what you're really saying is that you want the water to yourself. Right? :)

[Justitia]

42. You don't know jackshit about me, don't presume so.

Why don't you give us all an update on the Outer Banks windfarm proposal and add something useful to this thread?

If you don't care about the waterways of your own state, why can't they get local approval even though it is planned for 25 miles offshore?

[FBaggins]

44. I don't?

Can't I just assume that you're telling the truth here and go by what you've said? You're making a false argument and I'm just pointing it out to you.

Why don't you give us all an update on the Outer Banks windfarm proposal and add something useful to this thread??

What? Because I'm from NC? I have no idea whether it would make sense, but I certainly wouldn't oppose a windfarm five miles offshore based on bogus "open waterway" concerns. I'm not aware of a big fight over them... in fact I thought UNC Chapel Hill was putting a few up this year (7-10 miles from shore). A quick Google search says that the majority of local residents support the idea.

[Justitia]

45. So,you are not even informed about the planned windfarms in your own state.

Why don't you get yourself informed and involved in that ocean turbine project in your "own backyard" before you recommend one for Nantucket Sound?

All politics are local.

[FBaggins]

46. You just seem to dodge from one fallacy to the next, don't you?

What possible relevance would that have? Why would I need to know "thing 1" about specific projects to have an opinion on the thread? First you insist that someone be a sailor... then a sailor in those waters... then have information about OTHER wind proposals.

What better way to demonstrate that your position has far more "nimby" in it than concern for open waterways?

[Justitia]

48. And you use personal insults in lieu of policy disagreement.

Are we not talking about the construction of wind turbines & platforms in the public waterways of the United States?

You have a hotly contested proposal going on in your very own state, you know nothing about it, yet you want to weigh in on something happening in Nantucket Sound.

As far as NIMBY goes, I have mentioned my house is 100% wind powered many times already.
You could put a turbine next door to my bldg and it would be just fine with me, so that tired old argument doesn't fly here.
I live in TX - the Number 1 producer of wind energy in the country and home to the largest windfarm in the world.

Do you pay a premium for 100% wind power like I do?

[FBaggins]

49. Can you point out one of those personal insults?

I'm telling you that you're wrong and that your arguments are not logical (but rather emotional). I haven't said that you don't have a right to them, or that you're stupid, or any other "personal insult" (or even the vulgarities that you seem prone to).

If you find being told that you're wrong to be personally insulting... I recommend that you get over it... or try to be right more often. :)

Are we not talking about the construction of wind turbines & platforms in the public waterways of the United States?

Yes. So? Using public "land" to benefit the public really doesn't concern me. And you haven't made a good argument for the claim that it significantly diminishes anyone ELSE's use of the water.

You have a hotly contested proposal going on in your very own state, you know nothing about it, yet you want to weigh in on something happening in Nantucket Sound.

One is in the news today and the other isn't. Feel free to start your own thread about the "hotly contested" proposal if you feel strongly about it. There is no logical connection between knowing about one and having a valid opinion on the other. Particularly when YOU tried to set the standard for an opinion as "someone who has sailed in those waters" - which I have.


As far as NIMBY goes, I have mentioned my house is 100% wind powered many times already.

So? You seem to think that means something when it's just another fallacy (or perhaps "tired old argument" fits better.

[Justitia]

50. You are fine with privatizing public waters for private, corporate gain, I'm not.

You can go on and on with arguments as to rhetoric, but I have no interest.

You are okay with handing over our oceans to these private companies for their profit (why wouldn't our gov'ts own these?), I feel very differently.

If "emotional" arguments of open waterways are unimportant to you, why do you even advocate for windpower in the first place?

Let's just continue throwing up more rigs and platforms for oil, right? It will get the job done a lot faster and cheaper than wind.

And yeah, I put my $$$ where my mouth is and actually CHOOSE windpower and pay more for it - you don't, or you would have said so otherwise.

Put up or shut up.

[FBaggins]

55. Oh please.

I don't know whether you're buying the ridiculous spin or selling it, but it's still ridiculous. Oponents know that the population of the area is largely liberal and that liberals tend to support wind power... so they intentionally come up with "lefty-sounding" spin. It's an evil corporation, eh? It's "privatization" is it?

Who do you think runs the wind farms that you claim to support? Are none of them on leased public land? Is there any other scenario where leasing out an asset (particularly one that has no financial value otherwise) suddenly means you're "privatizing" it?

why do you even advocate for windpower in the first place?

Because wind power makes sense for about 5-10% of our future generating capacity and offshore often makes more sense than onshore alternatives. One of the big concerns with wind power is that it is too variable. You can put up a tower than can produce a megawatt, but only have it produce that 20% of the time... while you can count on twice that much if it's offshore.

And yeah, I put my $$$ where my mouth is and actually CHOOSE windpower and pay more for it - you don't, or you would have said so otherwise.


Lol... you continue with that BS? How logical do you think the argument is? "I support other wind power so my opinion carries more weight when I disagree with some project" ??? Is that supposed to make sense? If it does, I have a multiple-month track record of agreeing with kristopher very close to 0% of the time. So I must be credible when I agree with him, right?

What nonsense.

And for the record... I haven't been pushing this, or any other, particular wind project... I was merely correcting your BS spin.

[Justitia]

56. Your post makes no sense, and rude to boot.

Judging how much politics you put into this post, with your slamming of liberals, "lefty-sounding" spin, I guess you are just intent on sticking it to people who support Nantucket Sound.

I don't hang around this forum much, but today I certainly get the sense that there are a lot of cheerleaders for this move JUST TO STICK IT to those who care about the Sound.
Like a "take your medicine" kind of thing.

I see it as a cut off your nose to spite your face kind of thing.

I get it, you don't give a rat's ass about Nantucket Sound. But, I do. As well as other seaways and open waters.

And yeah, in Texas, our wind farms are not on public lands.

[FBaggins]

57. Lol... you can say "rude" after reading your posts? Please.

Judging how much politics you put into this post, with your slamming of liberals


Sorry. Your "judgement" obviously isn't very good. I didn't "slam" liberals. I talked about the people who try to CON liberals. They make up false arguments that SOUND lefty.

I don't hang around this forum much, but today I certainly get the sense that there are a lot of cheerleaders for this move JUST TO STICK IT to those who care about the Sound.
Like a "take your medicine" kind of thing.

Not at all. It's more a "the debate has been held and both sides have been heard and you lost. It's inelegant to not only whine about the officiating, but to keep trying for one more touchdown after the game is over"

I get it, you don't give a rat's ass about Nantucket Sound.

More BS fallacies, eh? This time it's the strawman.

And yeah, in Texas, our wind farms are not on public lands.

Really? And they don't transmit power over public lands? No for-profit energy company uses public land? Oil and gas drilling?

[Justitia]

58. You should really look into the whole windfarm thing in your own state.

You know, take an interest, maybe?

Nah, it's easier to just sit in NC and throw rocks at people who DO care about Nantucket Sound.

I used to live in North Carolina, it's a shame you don't care about the horrendous lack of renewable energy in your own state.

And yeah, you are obviously clueless about windpower in Texas, that's obvious.

[FBaggins]

59. Strawman

If you "care" about Nantucket Sound you must agree with those who opposed a wind farm, eh?

No circular reasoning there... no siree.

Hint. The people who support a wind farm in the area care a great deal about the sound. They just don't agree with you.

And yeah, you are obviously clueless about windpower in Texas, that's obvious.

Sounds like evading the question to me. Care to try again?

Then you can move on to why knowledge of texas or NC has anything at all to do with whether or not an opinion on another part of the country is valid.

[Justitia]

60. If you start arguing over rhetoric, you've lost the argument.

I stated my opinions on the matter, anyone is free to have a different one.

But I do seriously believe you don't give a crap about Nantucket Sound, it's obvious.

And I really don't understand how someone can have such a vested interest in the loss of a place when they don't seem to have any interest in the same issue right where they live.

I think you just wanted to "win" something against people who might not be in favor of privatizing Nantucket Sound.

[FBaggins]

61. Lol... that's a new one.

I'm pointing out that your arguments lack a logical foundation... that you are using poor reasoning.

I can see why you would like there to be a rule that says someone pointing out your errors means that you automatically win... but I don't see why anyone else would buy that.

I stated my opinions on the matter, anyone is free to have a different one.

That's strange. They're "free" to have their own opinion, but you'll happily curse at them and tell them that they don't "care" about the Sound. Interesting notion of "free" that you have.

But I do seriously believe you don't give a crap about Nantucket Sound, it's obvious.

Just as "obvious" that the vast majority of people in the state (including a majority of people on the Cape and Islands, the Democratic governor, Greenpeace... etc) don't "give a cr@p" either. IOW... not obvious at all.

And I really don't understand how someone can have such a vested interest in the loss of a place when they don't seem to have any interest in the same issue right where they live.

There's your imagination running away with you again. I have no "vested interest"... I have hardly any interest at all. I just saw your boneheaded appeal to irrational fears and untruths and corrected you.


I think you just wanted to "win" something against people who might not be in favor of privatizing Nantucket Sound.

Lol! In case you missed it, that "win" occured before you posted your first reply. I think you just feel that you lose a little less if you go down swinging.

[Justitia]

62. I already told you - I GET IT - I know you have no interest in Nantucket Sound.

As you have both said and demonstrated over and over.

I think it's a horrible mistake, you "hardly have any interest at all".

I mean, really, what is there to add to that???

YOU just started a thread with ME, asking an asinine question about boats for crying out loud to start an argument.

Just wanted to unload on somebody?

[FBaggins]

63. Have a compulsive need to get the last word

Even without saying anything?

Yes, I started a "thread" with you, but it was hardly an "asinine" question. It pointed out your ridiculous argument about how a few 15ft obstructions several hundred yards apart "impinges" on open waterways and that nobody who had ever sailed the area would of course know this. YOU went on further about how awful those "manmade" obstructions were... while ignoring the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of manmade obstacles that sailor deal with all the time.

The notion was not only wrong but ridiculously wrong.

Just wanted to unload on somebody?

Project much? Which one of us jumped to a forum he spends no time on made dozens of posts after a decision he disagrees with was made?

Who needed to unload?

[Justitia]

64. Sorry friend, you started this little contretemps for some strange reason - asking about boats.

Asinine was asking me if I had ever seen a boat on the water.

Or, pardon me, was that just your normal, sarcastic, caustic way? See, I don't know you.

Is this forum only open to some secret subsection of DU that only certain DUers are permitted to read?

Is this like the Gungeon or the I/P forums?

Do I need a conspiracy theory to burnish my bonafides?

[FBaggins]

65. Yes... it was sarcastic.

Pointing out how ridiculous it was to act as if these things would cause obstacles for recreational sailors. If you've ever actually sailed the area you've seen hundreds of more challenging obstacles.

Is this forum only open to some secret subsection of DU that only certain DUers are permitted to read?


You seem to mistake correcting you for somehow saying that you should be allowed to post your errors. Why would that be?

Once again... a solid majority of people in the state (and locally) support the project while you sit in Texas and whine about it (simultaneously arguing that people without local knowledge shouldn't have an opinion). Can you tell me on what planet that passes as rational?

Do I need a conspiracy theory to burnish my bonafides?

Again, you appear confused. The people making the arguments closest to "conspiracy theories" were the folks who opposed the plant. Like Kennedy's ridiculous claim (repeated by you in less eloquent terms) about "privatiz(ing) the commons" while claiming that he was in favor of offshore wind development in general (as if there was any offshore that wasn't "commons")... or that the aircraft warning lights will "steal the stars" (as if a blinking light one degree above the horizon is serious light polution).

[Justitia]

66. Sarcastic & looking for a fight - nice.

I've sailed the area - a lot.
This gigantic wind farm & it's platforms will be a permanent blight for recreational sailing, among other things.
How can you possibly say it won't? It doesn't even make sense to believe it will have no impact.

And you definitely tried to make me feel somehow less eligible to post in this forum, like you're the gatekeeper - oh well, too bad.

A majority of Texans think we should drill more in the Gulf Coast. They are local, they are wrong and I disagree with them too - so what?

Sorry you think Kennedy was ridiculous, I happen to agree with him - on many things, this included.

I don't think our seaways and oceans should be privatized for private profit.

And you disagree. You and the private corporation who is industrializing the ocean have something to cheer about today.

[OnlinePoker]

53. Look up the Tree of Tenere

At one time, it was the loneliest tree on earth without another one around for 250 km. In 1973, somebody hit it.

It will only be a matter of time until somebody hits one of these towers. Remember in 2007 when a ship hit the Bay Bridge in San Francisco and spilled tens of thousands of gallons of oil? Heavy fog was the cause, even with modern navigational equipment. What's the fog like in Nantucket?

[FBaggins]

54. You're saying that sometimes ships run into things?

Remember in 2007 when a ship hit the Bay Bridge in San Francisco

Sooo.... you're argument is that we never should have built the Bay Bridge? Should we tear it down now?

This isn't an oil rig that's going to leak if someone else hits it.

Also... the proposed farm is over shoal water... that imaginary tanker you have crashing into one of these things is already aground.

[cloudythescribbler]

68. It should also be noted that onland wind power is much cheaper, and development offshore raises ...

MANY issues other than the view. Given the powerful OPPOSITION to the wind farm, and lack of serious support from either MA senator, I doubt this is the end of the line of the dispute.

Personally, I think that we should have massive PUBLIC investment in wind and solar, including in the grid to support it, though of course the whole idea will inevitably be derided in US politics as "socialist".

With the kind of massive investment in wind and solar (including components' manufacture to generate jobs where most urgently needed, and to replace those from coal), together w/national flat electric rates (as were unsuccessfully put forward for the state of MA in a referendum in 1976), coal could be rapidly phased out. If the rest of the OECD world did so as well, Germany and the UK and other countries could phase out coal -- giving us a CHANCE against the feedback loops

It is my understanding that the possibilities of sufficient offshore wind in the US, given the opposition to it in most locales, as well as the CRUCIAL price issue, are relatively limited, and WAY less than onshore wind, including on existing farms and ranches

[kristopher]

69. Your "understanding" is poor

[ladjf]

10. And it's not likely to be leaking 42,000 gals of oil per day for

six or more months. nt

[Nathanael]

36. History of Cape Wind

For those who are not entirely familiar with the Cape Wind project, here is a quick time-line outlining the entire ordeal.

http://www.energyboom.com/wind/history-cape-cod-offshore-wind-energy-project

[joshcryer]

52. About fucking time.

I am surprised it got accepted given how many elites were against it (including some of our very own "progressive" democrats). Finally reason wins over elitism.