Cape Cod wind farm ruled to proceed !

I'm glad they are being built. 75% of cape cod's power needs will be met! all from renewable energy. I've been on the cape many times, it wont spoil the view. several miles out even a 40 story windmill will be barely visible, if at all.

 

I would suspect that the typical humidity levels there would create enough haze to make the turbines difficult to see, even on a clear day.

 

Hello, people,

I used to live on Martha's Vineyard & if I were able to move back there again I would have no trouble at all with the wind farm being nearby. It's an environmentally responsible way of making use of FREE energy.

And how far out are they supposed to be? I think I remember being taught that because of the curvature of the earth that one can only see something on the horizon for about 7 miles (maybe in this case a little more because they are going to stand about 440 feet tall---is that height really necessary for them to function efficiently?).

Even if one of these windmills were to topple over on its own or be struck by a boat or plane & be damaged, there wouldn't be the environmental disaster we're having in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisianna right now. Think of it people : clean, quiet, non-polluting energy from mother nature & it's free too!

And, it's not like these windmills are being built on otherwise useful land & within a few hundred feet of your property line. They are miles away from anybody unless you're living on a houseboat anchored over the shoals they will be built on.

Ken (in Bolton,Ct)

 

Maybe the big fans will blow away the haze.

Tom

 

This sounds like an excellent chance to trot out the math and science again.

For heights small compared to the diameter of the earth, the distance to the horizon can be approximated by this formula:

d = sqrt[1.5*h]

Where d is the distance to the horizon in miles and h is the height of the viewing point in feet.

As an example, if we stand at the seashore so that our eyes are six feet above the water, the distance to the horizon will be:

d = sqrt[1.5*6] = 3 miles

Now if we look out at something 440 feet high, that hight is added to our viewing point:

d = sqrt[1.5*(440+6)] = 26 miles

Of course as you approach that distance only the last upper tip of the blades would be visible, and then only if the air is clear.

Isn't science fun!

Tom

 

I really do understand NIMBYism, but in this instance, they're being given a chance to save their backyard. People with beachfront property should worry about rising sea levels and then their views...

 

Eat more beans I say, let your wind go free, right into a wind turbine!! Love wind energy and I'd have a wind turbine in my back yard if it was allowed.

 

i am glad that the project will move forward. as far as the view, sure its long been the status quo that rich people can afford to buy the view they want to see while the rest of us live amongst the hovering cloud of smog below.

but beauty is simply a personal opinion and as some would consider the bustling Manhattan skyline gorgeous or the deserted wide open rolling hills of Montana, i consider the sight of green power to be absolutely BEAUTIFUL!!

 

Actually, they tend to create a bit of haze due to the extra turbulence they create. There's some pictures of it happening on google.

Beautiful Photo Shows Wake Effects of Wind Turbines : TreeHugger



So actually, they might be less visible than they think some of the time.

 

Hey, that's pretty neat. Any chance wind turbines just offshore could bring extra moisture to crops?

 

Funny. Big fat drunk ol' Teddy Kenedy must be rolling over in his grave. After all, he was one of the key blockers to wind, if/when it potentially blocked the pristine view from his ocean front property. That always seemed an irony to me.

 

The view from the Mainland is estimated to be the equivalent of 1" on the horizon. That's five miles from the mainland, 14 from Nantucket.

I hear all kinds of arguments against, (some of the best recreation on the East Coast, airplanes, ferries etc) (and they are complaining that the project won't reduce their electricity rates) none of which are based on any real scientific reasons against the project. Make up your mind folks,, which would you rather have,, 1" views on the horizon, or more from you boat, or spilling oil in the Gulf, or Nuke waste, or more death from coal. It is pretty simple, there are no free lunches!

 

We're gonna get into politics again?

While Ted Kennedy was (wrongly) against the project, there was a motley crew of groups and people who were against the project, for various reasons.

 

See that! Wind turbines *do* produce pollution. Just look at all that smoke. I bet they emit nickel into the atmosphere too.

Tom

 

Life is choices, but there is more to this story than meets the eye. For instance:

Will the project actually be cost-effective? If the final cost per kWh is too high, they'll have to sell at a loss, and that won't encourage any future investment.
Are there other locations that might have been more suitable? This site is shallow, which is a big advantage, but there are a lot of other factors - including litigation costs and approval delays.
Could putting that same money toward efficiency improvements possibly have eliminated the need for the project entirely? This seems like a big blind spot in our culture - we'd rather spend billions on windmills than get rid of our incandescent bulbs and out of date air conditioning.

I think it's good that offshore wind development in the US is finally getting off the ground, but I don't think that's all there is to it.

 

Great pun there. Efficiency should always be the first step. But it's also one that investors don't like because it involves selling less. As I recall, Cape Wind is a private venture so they're interested in ROI, at the end of the day.

 

First point: This is an excellent site! Shallow and very consistent wind.
The Saudi Arabia of wind!

Second point: This is not an either/or question. We must do both:
Reduce consumption thru conservation AND find new renewable sources!

 

Did you say windmills? You really meant to say 'offshore oil rigs', didn't you?

Yes, it's always better to conserve than go looking for more.