Cape wind- Off shore wind power

CL275654

Hi everyone,
I'm working with a production company out of Boston on a documentary about the cape wind controversy for the Sundance Channel. For those around the country whom aren't aware of the project, it is a proposal for the largest offshore wind farm in the United States off the coast of Cape Code, MA. The film takes an unbiased look at the project, presenting both sides in a fair manner, so matter what your stance on the situation, its best to be informed before you shape opinions.

We would appreciate all the support we can get by following us on twitter, joining our facebook cause or PM me and i will be sure to get your on the mailing list for future developments with the project

capewindmovie.com
twitter.com/capewind
http://apps.facebook.com/causes/211054?m=3db756a1

Enjoy new music tomorrow on conan!
Bump if you believe!

jlew24asu

whats the controversy about? sounds like a great project

CL275654

Theres a lot to be said from both sides. Ecological impacts(passed all state environmental permits), it will offset a very small percentage of local fishermen( turbines planned to be about 3/4 of a mile apart and should not affect a majority of boaters and fishermen), property value, windmills are ugly.

check out the trailer at capewindmovie.com- gives a good overview of everything happening

jlew24asu

I'll check out the information you posted. best of luck on your project

Pats54

jlew24asu wrote:

I'll check out the information you posted. best of luck on your project

It is a good idea most of the people on the lfet oppose this.. However, rich, oceanfront residents of Cape Cod do not want their view of Nantucket Sound faintly obstructed by offshore protrusions of a proposed wind farm. So, they have hired high-priced lobbyists to kill Cape Wind, a project providing an environmentally sound source of energy. Their most important ally in this venture is a fellow wealthy Cape Cod landowner, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

jlew24asu

I think a view of wind turbines might actually be pretty cool. but thats just me

Anon

I think wind turbines are a nice idea but so many are needed to actually get anything done. Nuclear power is the way to go.

jlew24asu

JB811 wrote:

I think wind turbines are a nice idea but so many are needed to actually get anything done. Nuclear power is the way to go.

thats not entirely true. many are needed to power say, the entire eastern seaboard, yes. but a few can power local areas. nothing wrong with that.

polaris_x

jlew24asu wrote:

JB811 wrote:

I think wind turbines are a nice idea but so many are needed to actually get anything done. Nuclear power is the way to go.

thats not entirely true. many are needed to power say, the entire eastern seaboard, yes. but a few can power local areas. nothing wrong with that.

yes! ... i concur!

Anon

I'll take the reactor anytime.

polaris_x

JB811 wrote:

I'll take the reactor anytime.

wind is the cheapest form of new energy production right now ... nuclear reactors may power more homes and such but the true costs of a reactor when factoring in disposal, construction and maintenance costs are massive - the only reason why you don't see that is because nuclear power is subsidized whereas renewables currently don't have the same level of subsidies

jlew24asu

JB811 wrote:

I'll take the reactor anytime.

why? wind is cheaper, cleaner, can be implemented faster, and has no risk of "melting down". I can't think of one solid reason to prefer nuclear over wind power....on a local scale

blackredyellow

jlew24asu wrote:

JB811 wrote:

I'll take the reactor anytime.

why? wind is cheaper, cleaner, can be implemented faster, and has no risk of "melting down". I can't think of one solid reason to prefer nuclear over wind power....on a local scale

Yeah... besides capacity, nuclear has no benefits over wind.


I think that those turbines are cool to see.

Anon

jlew24asu wrote:

JB811 wrote:

I'll take the reactor anytime.

why? wind is cheaper, cleaner, can be implemented faster, and has no risk of "melting down". I can't think of one solid reason to prefer nuclear over wind power....on a local scale

Wind is not as reliable and the capacity is far less, nuclear will provide long term good paying jobs and tax revenue for the local cities. I see the only real downsides on the nuclear side as start up costs and disposal. Blame Obama for stopping the disposal after millions were already invested by the public. Many plants are now using steel and concrete casks for storage of spent fuel until the feds get their act together. Of course if some people would loosen their collars a little we could build reprocessing plants to burn the fuel down to almost complete.

jlew24asu

JB811 wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

JB811 wrote:

I'll take the reactor anytime.

why? wind is cheaper, cleaner, can be implemented faster, and has no risk of "melting down". I can't think of one solid reason to prefer nuclear over wind power....on a local scale

Wind is not as reliable and the capacity is far less, nuclear will provide long term good paying jobs and tax revenue for the local cities. I see the only real downsides on the nuclear side as start up costs and disposal. Blame Obama for stopping the disposal after millions were already invested by the public. Many plants are now using steel and concrete casks for storage of spent fuel until the feds get their act together. Of course if some people would loosen their collars a little we could build reprocessing plants to burn the fuel down to almost complete.

wind turbines would provide good paying jobs and tax revenue as well.

Kel Varnsen

JB811 wrote:

Of course if some people would loosen their collars a little we could build reprocessing plants to burn the fuel down to almost complete.

I remember learing about this in my 4th year energy systems class back in university. Basically Jimmy Carter basically caved to public fears and signed a law that meant nuclear power plants weren't allowed to reprocess nuclear waste.

Kel Varnsen

jlew24asu wrote:

JB811 wrote:

I'll take the reactor anytime.

why? wind is cheaper, cleaner, can be implemented faster, and has no risk of "melting down". I can't think of one solid reason to prefer nuclear over wind power....on a local scale

The only major incident at a nuclear plant in the 50+ years nuclear power has been used was at Chernobyl 23 years ago. Since then, like with everything else, the technology and safety checks has improved greatly. Cars were way more dangerous in 1986 too but people didn't call for getting rid of all automobiles.

jlew24asu

Kel Varnsen wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

JB811 wrote:

I'll take the reactor anytime.

why? wind is cheaper, cleaner, can be implemented faster, and has no risk of "melting down". I can't think of one solid reason to prefer nuclear over wind power....on a local scale

The only major incident at a nuclear plant in the 50+ years nuclear power has been used was at Chernobyl 23 years ago. Since then, like with everything else, the technology and safety checks has improved greatly. Cars were way more dangerous in 1986 too but people didn't call for getting rid of all automobiles.

sigh. I get that. by risks still remain as well as cleanup and disposal. with wind, there are ZERO risks. which was my point.

Anon

There really aren't zero risks as they still have an environmental impact. And the jobs comparison is not close, I've worked both. Nuclear is a job for life, once the wind turbines are built which really happens fast, there is only a crew or two that maintain them. Hundreds of people work full-time at a nuclear plant and when there are refueling outages we bring in contractors from the entire country that number around 2000 total at that point. Many local bars and restaurants make their money at this point in the year, not to mention the grocery stores/hotels/gas stations.

Also a nuclear company does more for the community because they are there in the community. Once the wind turbines are built the only reminder they exist are the whoosh of the blades and the dead birds. Oh and the odd sight that you never quite get used to.

jlew24asu

JB811 wrote:

There really aren't zero risks as they still have an environmental impact. And the jobs comparison is not close, I've worked both. Nuclear is a job for life, once the wind turbines are built which really happens fast, there is only a crew or two that maintain them. Hundreds of people work full-time at a nuclear plant and when there are refueling outages we bring in contractors from the entire country that number around 2000 total at that point. Many local bars and restaurants make their money at this point in the year, not to mention the grocery stores/hotels/gas stations.

Also a nuclear company does more for the community because they are there in the community. Once the wind turbines are built the only reminder they exist are the whoosh of the blades

how long does it take for a nuclear plant to be built and put online? you said it yourself, wind turbines go up really fast. a nuclear plant could take decades.....vs a few months

I'm all for nuclear, but given a choice, I would start with wind turbines. there really isn't any environmental impact, thats bullshit and you know it. but I suppose it would create a few more jobs though. but I dont give a fuck about job creation. this is about energy, not jobs.

JB811 wrote:

and the dead birds. Oh and the odd sight that you never quite get used to.

real nice touch to try and give yourself credibility lol. like I said, personally, I think it would be really cool to see those turbines in my view.

Anon

Give myself credibility? Are you 12?

BTW the new ESBWR reactors are supposed to be three years from shovel of dirt to production to the grid. Damn there goes my credibility again.