New at Tiara

[sbw1]

That's the Binford 2000 made by Bayliner.

 

[AndersonAcres]

The older style wind turbines did turn at high speeds and killed birds. The newer ones turn much more slowly. Though, perhaps they can get out of control like the Bayliner example. We do have pretty high winds on the prairie, and we've had wind turbines up north on either side of I-35 for quite a number of years now. Never heard of one blowing up like the Bayliner in Denmark. Maybe it was a terrorist attack.

The Cape Wind project is intended to be built on Horseshoe Shoals. I've sailed around there. It can be 'interesting'. Here's some interesting stuff about those shoals:

"Horseshoe Shoals lies about four miles from Point Gammon on the Cape, 11 miles from Nantucket at its southeasternmost point, and five and a half miles from Chappy. Mostly, as the shoals are invisible from the sea surface, the wind turbines above the shoals will be invisible from the Vineyard shore.

"It's just as well. One doesn't want to get too familiar with such places as Horseshoe Shoals. These shoals and all the others in Vineyard and Nantucket Sound keep a ghastly record of death and destruction. Arthur H. Gardner, in his 1877 history, "Wrecks Around Nantucket," listed more than 500 wrecks that he could document. Of course there were many more.

"In "Block Island to Nantucket," his 1961 account of his own small-craft explorations, Fessenden S. Blanchard wrote, "These shoals between Cape Cod and Nantucket are some of the most dangerous waters on the Atlantic Coast - with shoals, variable currents and frequent fogs which have challenged the courage and seamanship of cruising men since the days of Bartholomew Gosnold and Samuel de Champlain."

from http://www.mvtimes.com/marthas-vineyard/news/2009/02/19/at-large.php

 

[Beer Thirty]

Awesome, Finally some good news in the headlines from Michigan.

 

[JediJD]

Layed off 850 boat builders, and now adding 1000 wind turbine jobs. That's the kind of change people voted for. Yes this is political, and I like the boats better.

This deserves a book, and I only have a couple of paragraphs.

Apples to oranges. The boat jobs were private sector employment. The wind turbines don't make any economic sense at all without government subsidies...sort of like corn to fuel projects.

Economically, the 850 real jobs lost do not become 1000 real jobs today, there is a ramp up to that number...if it ever gets there. Also, the state of Michigan is now famous for giving out huge advances for businesses moving to Michigan...making the costs per job and subsidies per blade even less attractive in economic sense (after it has overtaxed and overregulated the companies there into oblivion). Finally, when somebody finally realizes that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes...and wind and solar have to pay their own way in a world of nuclear and clean coal with vastly lower costs, all of the "investment" becomes a complete loss.

Government cannot "invest". Government can only spend.

 

[Daniel P Thomas]

This deserves a book, and I only have a couple of paragraphs.



Government cannot "invest". Government can only spend.

Here! here!
Well said.

Just this past week a wind farm was shut down in a outer collar county of Chicago.
Aldridge Electric which operated it had told local residents that the sound would be that of a quiet refrigerator.

BS!!
At 120 ft ++ these things are loud and whine!

I am all for them, but they need to be out of the local area.

That said, any fool that votes for them in hopes of lowering their utility bills probably has relatives that bought houses near a major airport and now complain about the noise!

My $0.02 worth.

Dan

 

[RT 240SD]

Funny this popped up. A few weeks ago I suggested the same thing for sea ray in a convo with friends.

 

[Hampton]

You wouldn't even be able to see it from shore. I guess the deal was it killed birds. Big whoopie.

Maybe people complained that they were an eyesore, so they painted butterflies on them - you can't have everything.

 

[tobnpr]

The cost to build a "wind farm" offshore has got to be astronomical when compared to building the same on dry land.

So my question is "Why"? If it's private enterprise making this "investment" I don't give a crap, but if it's my tax dollars...

Since it's our government- and OUR tax dollars- making this "infrastructure" investment- it is, by definition, political.

 

[texxmark]

Cape Winds proposed site is right in the middle of a very heavy recreational / commercial boating area, it’s not the same as putting a wind farm in the middle of a corn field or off shore were you can't see it.

Where do you think the offshore Oil Rigs that provide fuel for your boat are located? I'm for one sick and tired of everyone on the east coast 1) whining about offshore windfarms 2) griping about high energy costs. Get off your high horse and try to become part of the solution and not the problem. Have you ever wondered why Texas created more jobs than the other 49 states combined last year? Think energy! ( Approximately 70 percent of the jobs created in the U.S. from November 2007-2008 were in Texas, with 7,300 jobs created in November 2008 alone. Texas’ unemployment rate is one point lower than the national average, and the state’s annual growth rate was 2.1 percent last year, compared to -1.4 percent nationally.)

 

[Jack F]

Cape Winds proposed site is right in the middle of a very heavy recreational / commercial boating area, it’s not the same as putting a wind farm in the middle of a corn field or off shore were you can't see it.

Where do you think the offshore Oil Rigs that provide fuel for your boat are located? I'm for one sick and tired of everyone on the east coast 1) whining about offshore windfarms 2) griping about high energy costs. Get off your high horse and try to become part of the solution and not the problem. Have you ever wondered why Texas created more jobs than the other 49 states combined last year? Think energy! ( Approximately 70 percent of the jobs created in the U.S. from November 2007-2008 were in Texas, with 7,300 jobs created in November 2008 alone. Texas’ unemployment rate is one point lower than the national average, and the state’s annual growth rate was 2.1 percent last year, compared to -1.4 percent nationally.)

Bite me, the only reason anyone would do this is off shore is because of tax payer dollars.

1,2. I don't think I was whining.

 

[texxmark]

Fair enough argument about tax dollars as I also think it's a bad investment with Our money. However I'm more than willing to bet the private sector would be more than happy to move in and explore for O&G off the coast. Nope not happening because you are too concerned about your view or the "enviromental impact". Before you argue please educate yourself as to the true impact.

As far as "whining" that was a poor choice of words...My apologies and I didn't mean to specify wind farms. It's the whole attitude about not exploring energy options off the coast of the NW because it may affect you. Why is it ok for it to affect us? What makes you think your coastline is more important than mine? It's this attitude that gets my blood boiling. You want it all, but not willing to pay the piper. Again I'm not trying to single you out but it seems the attitude of the region.

 

[Jack F]

Fair enough argument about tax dollars as I also think it's a bad investment with Our money. However I'm more than willing to bet the private sector would be more than happy to move in and explore for O&G off the coast. Nope not happening because you are too concerned about your view or the "enviromental impact". Before you argue please educate yourself as to the true impact.

As far as "whining" that was a poor choice of words...My apologies and I didn't mean to specify wind farms. It's the whole attitude about not exploring energy options off the coast of the NW because it may affect you. Why is it ok for it to affect us? What makes you think your coastline is more important than mine? It's this attitude that gets my blood boiling. You want it all, but not willing to pay the piper. Again I'm not trying to single you out but it seems the attitude of the region.

You wouldn't happen to be in the business of exploring for O&G off the coast would you?

If by trying to prevent something you don't want, then I'll agree " it seems to be the attitude of the region" , you should try it.

 

[fc3]

Hey Mark. You wanna drill over here, come on up! More energy is good for the economy, which is suckling hind ... right now. Oil rigs in the Atlantic? That's the view of prosperity as far as I'm concerned.

Best regards,
Frank

 

[texxmark]

To answer your question yes I am in the Biz...Otherwise I don't feel I would be qualified to comment about the "true enviromental impact" and the jobs it creates. You lost me on the "trying to prevent something you don't want" comment. As a nation I believe we want energy independence / lower costs and I'm not saying O&G is the total solution, but it is no doubt a bridge while we advance technologies elseware. As far as personel attacks I'm above that.
Oh well I think this thread is far enough topic...hope all had a good weekend and got the boats wet!
RANT OVER

 

[skibum]

Hey Mark. You wanna drill over here, come on up! More energy is good for the economy, which is suckling hind ... right now. Oil rigs in the Atlantic? That's the view of prosperity as far as I'm concerned.

Best regards,
Frank

I'm with you, buddy. If it means affordable gas and heating oil, put 5 or 10 oil rigs right smack in the middle of the Chesapeake. I'll drive around them.

It just pisses me off that people want to stop drilling for or using oil BEFORE we have a viable alternative. Its just plain stupid. :smt021

Michael

 

[Larry]

I'm with you, buddy. If it means affordable gas and heating oil, put 5 or 10 oil rigs right smack in the middle of the Chesapeake. I'll drive around them.

It just pisses me off that people want to stop drilling for or using oil BEFORE we have a viable alternative. Its just plain stupid. :smt021

Michael

I second that....

 

[skibum]

To answer your question yes I am in the Biz...Otherwise I don't feel I would be qualified to comment about the "true enviromental impact" and the jobs it creates. You lost me on the "trying to prevent something you don't want" comment. As a nation I believe we want energy independence / lower costs and I'm not saying O&G is the total solution, but it is no doubt a bridge while we advance technologies elseware. As far as personel attacks I'm above that.
Oh well I think this thread is far enough topic...hope all had a good weekend and got the boats wet!
RANT OVER

Hehe... Don't get too upset. Notice that all the opposition is coming is coming from the NE. I have relatives up there, and it is a real eye opener to go up there and observe the way things are. My relatives are spread out between the Providence / Fall River area and Cape Cod. For as long as I can remember they have been complaining about how bad the economy is. Even while the country was experiencing record growth, the economy in that whole area just seemed to be lagging behind. They are the first to complain about how bad things are, and yet they keep voting for the same old people pushing the same old liberal agenda. They'll be stuck in this depression longer than the other states even after things get turned around (in 10 years or so).

Back to O&G. As a precusror to the "war on prosperity" that the left has been fighting, they began setting up the battle plans by having a couple of like minded individuals to develop this idiotic theory called "peak oil". This was phase 1 of the plan, to convince people that we were running out of oil. Phase 2 involved getting enough liberals in Congress and the Senate to intentionally make oil production match the curve derived in the "peak oil" theory. The "theory" was that the curve would happen because we would just "tap out" the world's supply of oil. Notice the extremely pessimistic predictions for new oil and gas discoveries in the link posted above. Once they realized that "peak oil" was a bad theory and that supply and new discoveries would exceed the levels predicted, they began Phase 3 which was to attack O&G on the environmental front. Convince the lemmings that the use of O&G would cause the world to end, gaining public support for further restrictions and reduction in usage. Phase 4 was to eliminate the private sector's ability to explore or actually extract any new supplies of O&G that are found through legislation. Even if we do find it, we can't drill for it. Anywhere. Period. Phase 5 is to keep the masses' attention away from the fact that this is a manufactured dilema. Pump up the viability of the alternatives and over exaggerate their ability to be workable solutions. It would be a disaster if the American people ever found out the truth. We have plenty of oil and using it is not killing the planet. It would be difficult explaining to your constituents that you continuously voted against progress and prosperity just because you WANTED your original theory to turn out to be correct, not because it was the right thing to do.

Capd Cod should be one of the very first places to start putting up wind farms. There, and California. Put a wind farm every 5 miles up and down the coast in California. Give them what they have been saying that THEY want. I love watching the hypocracy. You wouldn't be getting windmills in your precious Cape if you would just let Exxon drill a friggin' hole in the ground 4500 miles away. You CHOSE this as a solution. Live with it.

 

[Hampton]

It just pisses me off that people want to stop drilling for or using oil BEFORE we have a viable alternative. Its just plain stupid. :smt021

Michael

I disagree. If we want to control the energy of the world, and we do, it's smart to continue to use up their resources before they have an alternative, then, we they run out (if they do), we begin to increase the use of our own resources while we work to develop alternative energy solutions, which we will, before anyone else. The otherwise completely unproductive arab desert nations will fall back into complete squallor and start roaming around the desert aimlessly blaiming their lives on the Jews, just like they were before the oil boom. I'd fly 5,000 miles to smoke a camel - and I'm not talking about cigarettes.

 

[MLauman]

I disagree. If we want to control the energy of the world, and we do, it's smart to continue to use up their resources before they have an alternative, then, we they run out (if they do), we begin to increase the use of our own resources while we work to develop alternative energy solutions, which we will, before anyone else. The otherwise completely unproductive arab desert nations will fall back into complete squallor and start roaming around the desert aimlessly blaiming their lives on the Jews, just like they were before the oil boom. I'd fly 5,000 miles to smoke a camel - and I'm not talking about cigarettes.

My concern with this scenario is that by the time they run out (if they do) that they will own our resources.

 

[Hampton]

My concern with this scenario is that by the time they run out (if they do) that they will own our resources.

They may own it, but let's see them come and get it.