Cape Wind

[gmckennon]

Greenpeace: YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED! Only the wealthy few will be able to afford their explosive rates..... But hey! They'll most likely move away because of the blighted view. Oh, and by the way, Greenpeace, which was founded in Yarmouthport here on Cape Cod, should consider the sonar frequency that the WHALES will have to endure!

[Meekseek]

There was one place to go and not see man's dominion but for the occasional boats, now that too shall be gone.

[fengineer08]

Liberals and energy don't go hand in hand, and never will. This country needs more nuclear power, but sadly is having a hard time getting it because of public ignorance. Look at France, 95% of their electricity comes from nuclear power! Get educated people, it's the best way to go!

[EvilSlyGuy]

So tired of the Kennedy's and their supporters bitching about oil and Bush, but then don't want a squeaky clean energy source near them, because they hate the "view". Tough luck liberals, you can't have your cake and eat it too, build that Wind Farm NOW!

[lisalumi]

The Wompanoag indians are trying to block Cape Winds saying Nantuckett Sound-all of it- should be theirs. It seems if the C.Wind project goes forward it will block the sunrise from Martha's Vineyard for them. There is a morning ritual they have that requires am unblocked sunrise view. I don't know. Good grief, first the Kennedys' now the Native Americans. Greenpeace, do you want to weigh in too?

[jeverich]

Isn't this just wonderful....just like what's proposed around Block Island. It must just be a "coincidence" that the entire Southern New England fishing grounds are going into 2-1 and 3-1 Differential Counting - right?

These NGO trustafarians need to find another cause. Clearly, groups like EDF have taken up the New England fishing industry as their own personal 'project' by promoting 'Catch Shares'. Complete bullshit! ITQs - leading to a privately owned fleet of factory trawlers.

[JonThm]

The wind is driven by thew air doing molecular nuclear fusion, turning water vapor into He, O and gamma radiation: Plus a lot of heat adn motive power.

[tribalscribal]

"Not just for the wealthy few" is Greenpeace's version of corporate bs. They should be ashamed of themselves. All sorts of workingclass folks oppose siting an industrial wind plant in Nantucket Sound: fishing families, ferryboat operators, weekend boaters and low-income residents of the Cape and Islands. Don't let Greenpeace lies sway you. Cape Wind is the right project in the WRONG PLACE!

[angelica14709]

Send men and women to die in Iraq is the "wrong place" to get our energy. Death in a coal mine is the "wrong place" to die, maybe a little black lung is ok. I think the idea of storing nuclear waste in the sound would be the right place, under water you won't see it.

[wyattishere4]

hey buddy, I'm doing a project about this in school, and the facts are in. This wont harm the fishing idustry because the wind farm is on Horseshoe Shoal, which at low tide can have a depth of 5-50 feet. you wouldn't think that commercial fishing boats could get through there huh? Ferry boat operators are supposed to steer clear of the Shoal because its too shallow. Also, the turbines are spaced 1/2 mile apart, so only retards could hit them with their boats. You just got owned by a 14 year old.

[tribalscribal]

ha! your age is showing, "buddy". go back and do your homework! AND go ask the fishing families that have been working those shoals. they're not toolin' around in factory trawlers, you idiot!

as for other navigation: have you ever been totally fogged in? i guess not.

[Paulpunkrocks]

Tell me, whats worse, going to get foreign oil from the people that we hate... or building wind turbines barely noticeable... 1000s of troops die over that oil, and few fishermen maybe lose their jobs... this all makes no sense, rather having nuclear plants, coal factories etc to power your homes, your insane

[tribalscribal]

I'm being driven insane by people who present false choices. We don't use oil to generate electricity. As for nukes & coal: sure they suck! I'm not saying forget Cape Wind, I'm saying MOVE IT! Don't put it on public property for private profit and don't trash Nantucket Sound. Put it on land that's already developed: easier access, already butt-ugly. If there's a little less wind, say at Otis, add some more mills.

[Paulpunkrocks]

Move it so that other less wealthy people will have the turbines in the horizon... i understand... its not your waters, its private, as well u dont own the horizon no matter how wealthy u are... u guys are putting this way out of proportion then what it is, clean energy... thats what its really all about and if it means spoiling scenery, then let it be

[tribalscribal]

OMG! I'm a contractor who lives on the other end of the state. Stop with the party line already! There are thousands of working people oppossed to Cape Wind. You're just parroting their talking points. BTW, Nantucket Shoals is PUBLIC PROPERTY.

[Paulpunkrocks]

5 miles in from the shore is public, from there on is federal waters, thats how it is everywhere, i say fair game... why don't you accept it

[BritishTwits]

@tribalscribal So, why are you opposed to it. I'd really like to know.

[bmwz8guy]

rofl!

[SierraM363]

I guess it doesn't really matter anymore since this project is all but destined to go forward.

I hope everyone in the Cape enjoys this project when it finally gets built.

[angelica14709]

What is that suppose to mean? Does it mean you drive a gas guzzler, and you want your oil? Does it mean you belive the Japanese story about whaling research? You need to be in Iraq fighting for "our" or "your" oil. The benefit package from the government is to replace what people in the US spent on oil. Money fresh off the printing press. "W" keeps making the mess bigger.

[JonThm]

Plants take in CO2 - it is their food. THey ezxcrete O2, which we breathe in - plant waste. Man's chemical engines act as super animals and release more cO2. PLANTS LOVE IT!

[angelica14709]

"Plants take in CO2 and make oxygen". How profound. "Plants do love it" another profound statement. So give us the figures on how many acres it takes for 1(one) of the billions tons CO2 to be absorbed? When will the plants start growing when people are using fire to get rid of them? Jon you are the "mad scientist" with an ego.

[angelica14709]

I think it is possible that the near fatal car accident has left you brain damaged. As for your master's degree in engineering, what college did you get it from? I am sure they will be proud your futuristic thinking. You had better google "global carbon production" to support your arguments.

[angelica14709]

You might be right if we were in the age of dinosaurs where the land could grow vegetation. If the seas were left alone to grow aquatic life and not being killed by pollution like nuclear waste. The planet will recycle without us just fine.

[JonThm]

THere was more CO2 in the Jurassic, lower sea levels and more life on Earth. Which part of this do you argue with?

[angelica14709]

It's not Jurassic it's 2008. The land is now tilled land with 6,679,170,802 people(1-25-08 at 8:23 GMT and growing). Which part of this do you argue with? You say "more life on Earth" explain.

[JonThm]

THere si onyl 0.00037% max CO2 in the air - data New scientist. And plants take it in to grow, so more CO2, more life on Earth! And lower sea levels, as the plants tie up rain in their bulk. Plants scrub the CO2 from the air.

[angelica14709]

46 words explains it, written by a PHD student. I'm convinced.

[JonThm]

The wind is driven by molecular nuclear fusion, going off in moist air during the day. The steam cycles gives direct access to molecular nuclear fusion.

It does not depend on the weather to give us a bit of it, it is reliable and powerful! Man found out how to do it in the 18th century. And it involves no nuclear fission, and toxic waste!

[angelica14709]

And no CO2 emissions

Now you are making some sense, Thank You

[frbe0101]

your high! It driven by nuclear fusion alright, just nuclear fusion 150 million km away.

[JonThm]

CO2 goes up and down with season and plant growth. So it is higher in an ice age! It follows the climate, the 0.00037% has no effect on the weather. More CO2, more life on Earth. More nuclear plants, more death on Earth!

[angelica14709]

"More CO2, more life on Earth." JonThm is this a Rush Limbaugh scientific fact? Where did you get this, back it up?

[JonThm]

Basic biology! Yuo are built of organic carbo0n, which plants get from CO2! All life comes from plants taking in CO2. I am sure you were taught thsi in high school biology! O2 is plants waste gas.

[angelica14709]

High school are you kidding me, that was 55 years ago. In 1997 per capita carbon was 5.5 metric tons in the US. How many square miles of ocean or forest will take up 5.5 metric tons of carbon for one person. Since 1751 roughly 315 billion tons of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production.

[JonThm]

A quarter of the CO2 is from animal breathing. Extra CO2 just increases life on Earth: This is from my PhD, but global warming is PR rubbish from nuclear power, that does not stand up to high school biology!

[angelica14709]

So what college did you go to and where are you a student now? I think they are just taking your money, maybe an insurance settelment? Your credibility is somewhat shakey. Your bio, your photo with your head in the same position shows disturbing information. Youtube is great to let all of us nuts out to vent, my big thing is a dump company messing up our village. This company will produce in the year 2012 900,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide.

[JonThm]

I am a PhD student at Sheffeild University, UK: With no financial links to power! Onyl to computing, and singing! Nuclear power produces as much CO2 as burning fossi lfuels! Luckily it has no effect on the weather - there is only 0.00037% max of it in the air

[angelica14709]

In 2004 we released about 26 billion metric tons (28.7 billion U.S. tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels—more than four metric tons (4.4 U.S. tons) for each person on Earth.

[JonThm]

Man's emisison are a quater of what animals expire! All this means there are moer plants, and so more life on Earth! CO2 is take nin by plants, to support life!

[JonThm]

CO2 is the gas of life! It supports life, it does not threaten it - and it leads to lower seas, more global rain, and warmer Poles: It si so good!

[angelica14709]

This is in addition to the CO2 being released by plants, animals, and other sources as part of the natural carbon cycle. The CO2 that we are producing by burning fossil fuels is more than can be absorbed naturally by plants and the oceans, so CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are likely to continue to rise.

I wish that you are right, the planet will recycle just fine without people.