5 ms·

Hopefully this will spur developments for Cape Wind [1] and other locations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Wind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Win

Hopefully this will spur developments for Cape Wind [1] and other locations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Wind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Wind

tcoppi 10y ago
Anything that close to shore is going to cause, and in this case has already caused, a lot of NIMBY backlash. I can't say I really blame them for it either. We're going to have to find locations suitably far offshore to put these things, as the article suggests.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  The standards that NIMBYers advocate in this context, e.g. "if it's within X miles I might be able to see it" would be laughable in any other. Not to mention that wind generators are among the most beautiful useful things ever built, so it's odd to claim that seeing them is some sort of hardship. If windswept shorelines weren't occupied by old-money assholes, these facilities would already be common in USA.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    I seem to remember the UK also had some fishermen protests until the fishermen found out fishing was better among the wind farms. Old article, I wish I could find now. [edit] also, isn't 7 miles offshore pretty much close to out of site?
    - flexie 10y ago
      Pretty much, if the observer is standing down on the beach. If he is standing on high cliffs he might be able to see them if he really tries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon
  - Thriptic 10y ago
    It's easy to point the finger and call people assholes when its not your home value that is being impacted by the project. For better or worse, most people don't move to places like cape cod so they can stare at wind turbines all day. Placing them there will obviously negatively impact home prices where they are dominant on the horizon. That's not to say that it's a bad idea to put them there, and the overall public good may make it worth it, but to brush off the concerns of the actual residents (who I would guess is not you) as stupid is not very productive.
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      They're not assholes because they live/vacation on the shore, they're assholes because they've arranged for a different set of rules to apply to them. Offshore petroleum extraction equipment has been a common sight offshore in other regions of USA for decades. That equipment is much uglier, and has more disturbing associated traffic, than wind generators. I don't own any shoreline property, but if I claimed some right to regulate what can be done in sight of the property I do own, the only result would be well-deserved derision.
      - tcoppi 10y ago
        I don't think anyone in that situation is claiming a right(which would indeed be preposterous), just an interest in using their political power to deny, degrade, and disrupt the process of getting these sorts of projects approved if they are within sight of shore. They are perfectly within their rights to do that, and it is and will have a strong effect on the ability of these projects to get both funds and regulatory approval, which is why I suggested that they should be looking at sights not visible from land, of which there are plenty suitable locations.
        karma_vaccum123 10y ago
        Cheaper and easier to just pass marine development laws that categorically invalidate their claims. If people want to move, let them. No one will. edit: for some reason I cannot respond to the child of this comment, but I recommend reading this if you think Bay Area NIMBYism is omnipotent: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-brown-housing-plan-20160514-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-brown-housing-pla... State and Federal governments override local concerns all the time.
  - pjc50 10y ago
    Indeed. Until very recently, people looking along the beautiful coast from Edinburgh could see a coal fired power station on the beach. And still a few people managed to complain about turbines on distant ridgelines. Even more beautifully, one of the proposed uses of the site of the demolished power station is as a launching site for offshore wind turbine construction.
- mattkevan 10y ago
  I like seeing the turbines off the Essex coast in the UK. They look quite small and close to the shore, until a boat sails in front of them and you can see their true size. It's a weird feeling the way it plays with your perception of scale, like forced perspective in reverse.

Hopefully this will spur developments for Cape Wind [1] and other locations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Wind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Wind

tcoppi 10y ago

Anything that close to shore is going to cause, and in this case has already caused, a lot of NIMBY backlash. I can't say I really blame them for it either. We're going to have to find locations suitably far offshore to put these things, as the article suggests.

jessaustin 10y ago
The standards that NIMBYers advocate in this context, e.g. "if it's within X miles I might be able to see it" would be laughable in any other. Not to mention that wind generators are among the most beautiful useful things ever built, so it's odd to claim that seeing them is some sort of hardship. If windswept shorelines weren't occupied by old-money assholes, these facilities would already be common in USA.
- protomyth 10y ago
  I seem to remember the UK also had some fishermen protests until the fishermen found out fishing was better among the wind farms. Old article, I wish I could find now. [edit] also, isn't 7 miles offshore pretty much close to out of site?
  - flexie 10y ago
    Pretty much, if the observer is standing down on the beach. If he is standing on high cliffs he might be able to see them if he really tries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon
- Thriptic 10y ago
  It's easy to point the finger and call people assholes when its not your home value that is being impacted by the project. For better or worse, most people don't move to places like cape cod so they can stare at wind turbines all day. Placing them there will obviously negatively impact home prices where they are dominant on the horizon. That's not to say that it's a bad idea to put them there, and the overall public good may make it worth it, but to brush off the concerns of the actual residents (who I would guess is not you) as stupid is not very productive.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    They're not assholes because they live/vacation on the shore, they're assholes because they've arranged for a different set of rules to apply to them. Offshore petroleum extraction equipment has been a common sight offshore in other regions of USA for decades. That equipment is much uglier, and has more disturbing associated traffic, than wind generators. I don't own any shoreline property, but if I claimed some right to regulate what can be done in sight of the property I do own, the only result would be well-deserved derision.
    - tcoppi 10y ago
      I don't think anyone in that situation is claiming a right(which would indeed be preposterous), just an interest in using their political power to deny, degrade, and disrupt the process of getting these sorts of projects approved if they are within sight of shore. They are perfectly within their rights to do that, and it is and will have a strong effect on the ability of these projects to get both funds and regulatory approval, which is why I suggested that they should be looking at sights not visible from land, of which there are plenty suitable locations.
      - karma_vaccum123 10y ago
        Cheaper and easier to just pass marine development laws that categorically invalidate their claims. If people want to move, let them. No one will. edit: for some reason I cannot respond to the child of this comment, but I recommend reading this if you think Bay Area NIMBYism is omnipotent: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-brown-housing-plan-20160514-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-brown-housing-pla... State and Federal governments override local concerns all the time.
- pjc50 10y ago
  Indeed. Until very recently, people looking along the beautiful coast from Edinburgh could see a coal fired power station on the beach. And still a few people managed to complain about turbines on distant ridgelines. Even more beautifully, one of the proposed uses of the site of the demolished power station is as a launching site for offshore wind turbine construction.
mattkevan 10y ago
I like seeing the turbines off the Essex coast in the UK. They look quite small and close to the shore, until a boat sails in front of them and you can see their true size. It's a weird feeling the way it plays with your perception of scale, like forced perspective in reverse.