The long debated Cape Wind farm comes one small step closer to completion. The air force is once again saying that the wind farm will NOT interfere with the PAVE PAWS radar station at Otis National Air Force Base. This removes yet another issue that opponents of the wind farm can use to say it wont/shouldn’t be installed.
Air Force officials are standing behind their initial findings that the proposed 130-turbine Cape Wind project would not interfere with the Air Force’s PAVE PAWS radar station in Sagamore.
…
The most recent conclusion by the Air Force Space Command echoes the findings from a 2004 study in which it reached the conclusion that 417-foot-tall turbines would not adversely affect the radar operations at PAVE PAWS. (via)
The only issue left for opponents of the wind farm to argue about is the aesthetic nature of the project. Which may become a moot argument if rising sea levels destroy cape cod. Cape wind could represent America’s first step towards a broad and aggressive fight against global warming. Without such a fight, many of the wind farms strongest opponents would be forced to move as the ocean swallows more and more of their lavish beach front property. To quote a great philosopher who once said “isn’t it ironic, don’t you think?”
Before leaping to any conclusion that ‘Cape Wind Will Not Effect Radar’, please review this information:
http://www.saveoursound.org/node/536
“…Karen Jeffrey reports that U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass., and others, “are still awaiting a larger Defense Department report, due in the spring, on a number of issues surrounding the impact of wind turbines on radar, missile defense systems and other security issues. Among these concerns is a 2005 report from Great Britain that suggests turbine blades can produce holes in detection for military radar systems.”
Delahunt was quoted in the story saying, ”The Pentagon has called the Air Force’s opinion flawed and technically deficient. We will reserve comment until after a more detailed Pentagon assessment is finished this spring.”
“Charles Vinick, President and CEO of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, echoed Delahunt’s caution about reaching a conclusion to the issue based on Air Force comments. ”Until we have a written report in hand that we can review to understand the parameters of the study, it would be inappropriate to offer comment,” he said. ”It is my understanding that there is a larger study under way and it would be premature to offer conjecture on what that might find.”
Barbara, your organization is part of the group of people I was poking fun at in the post, why do you think I would take your view to be anything but biased on this issue?
Delahunt is putting politics over science, he is a politician after all. His opinion on how radar works doesn’t mean anything compared to how radar actually works.
Speaking of politics, you might want to stick your head outside, because the political winds they are a blowin, and not in your favor.
Naib:
I don’t have an organization for you to poke fun at. I am individual, a tourist of the Cape and Islands’, who appreciates the current views, public safety, bird life, marine life, and the current rights of the fishermen-all of which would be compromised by Cape Wind.
Favorable action by MMS on the Cape Wind permit application would be vigorously challenged, just ask any NIMBY. The Cape Wind project is ill conceived as proposed for Nantucket Sound. Our regulators need only refer to the intent and spirit of the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, in their review of the Cape Wind permit application, and available data, to conclude this. Under an objective NEPA review, this proposal will fail to meet public interest requirements.
The Air Traffic Controllers Union at Cape Approach states that they, “could not think of a worse place to put these turbines.” The Woods Hole, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority states this proposal poses a “significant hazard to safe navigation.†The Barnstable Airport, Martha’s Vineyard Airport, and the Nantucket Memorial Airport strongly object Cape Wind. The Barnstable Airport officials call this project “Lethal.”
NEPA asserts that it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings and; to attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences.
That which poses a threat to the public safety fails to meet public interest requirements of NEPA. MMS must adhere to the rules of NEPA in their evaluation of the Cape Wind proposal. The federal government holds this public resource in trust for the public. The Cape Wind plan would create a public safety hazard, kill our wildlife, and threaten our heritage trades in this public resource.
“Our opponents are fond of saying that Nantucket Sound is not for sale,” Jim Gordon said. “And sometimes I think that’s because they believe they already own it.”
That’s because we do.
The less people know about Cape Wind, the more they support it.
Niab:
There is no fix currently available that will prevent the masking of a Hawk Jet, MOD test study confirmed by the DOD in October of 2006, flying from 2,000 ft., to 23,000 ft., over wind towers.
There are approximately 400,000. flights traveling in this airspace each year.
Pave Paws is one of only two early warning systems in this country, and it is located on Cape Cod.
Do you know what a “Red Zone” as defined by the DOD is?
Barbara: just knock it off, I am very familiar with who you are and what you stand for. I live on cape cod, I read capecodtoday.com I have read your long screeds on cape wind before.
You present a never ending stream of objections to this project that by your own admission (being a tourist) have no personal stake other than your view.
Your objections have been taken apart bit by bit piece by piece, yet you always find new and more outrageous things to complain about. The simple truth is thus, you don’t like this project. I do. No amount of discussion will change that.
The bird issue has been put to rest, the marine mammal issue has been put to rest, the Europeans seem to be able to work around the radar issue, and now our own military says its OK, the navigation issue has been put to rest, and yet you still, to your dying breath, will oppose this wind farm, because of the view.
That’s fine, oppose it all you want, I am proud of your usage of your rights of free speech, but please don’t try and tell people lies to make your point. If you told people you think it would look ugly and would piss you off that is an honest response to this project. People might even agree with you. There is however no ecological, or technical reason why this project should not be put into place.
Focus on the issues that are true, namely your opposition to the view. You will get much better mileage out of that argument. Go back to capecodtoday.com at least you have fellow supporters there, here you get no sympathy. I care about stopping global warming, I live here, I am for this project, and I think its a good idea.
I am going to wait till the final report comes out. I suggest you do the same.
The Niab:
I use my real name as I have nothing to hide, and nothing to lie about. I have never denied caring about the views, (federally protected under NEPA, by the way). The Cape Wind apple becomes an onion when it’s peeled. Apparently, the truth about Cape Wind eludes you. The bird issue has not been put to rest according to the federal regulatory reviewing agency, (that has been seeking information they need from Cape Wind since 2002), USFWS.
There is no ecological or technical reason why this project should be introduced in Nantucket Sound.
I’m not looking for sympathy. I’m spreading the facts that you don’t want to consider. You have my sympathy as the facts obviously threaten your panacea. Thinking that Cape Wind is a good idea is hardly justification to ignore the wind tower siting guidelines of the DOI/USFWS, Greenpeace, The Sierra Club, MA Audubon, and the American Bird Conservancy–avoid areas with endangered species present. Siting Cape Wind in an area of endangered species, Nantucket Sound, would give the wind industry a black eye. The economic viability of wind projects is threatened when endangered birds die. Check with Henning Gastrup, the key figure in Denmark’s energy program at Elsam, if you don’t believe this tourist.
I cite siting guidelines to accomodate your view that wind towers belong somewhere. I am a wind energy agnostic, leaning toward wind energy atheism. When Denmark can cite good results, cleaner air, by their wind tower “solution” perhaps I’ll consider this approach as a “solution.” Presently, this “solution” is budgetary, as Denmark’s exportation of turbines is a big money maker for them.
Global Warming is addressed comprehensively, below. Follow the money, Niab, you are but a pawn in a high stakes chess match:
Marx Would Have Loved Kyoto
INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 2/12/2007
Climate Change: Canada’s new leader is taking heat over an old letter saying Kyoto was a “socialist scheme” to redistribute wealth on a global scale. Was Karl Marx the first environmentalist?
Opponents of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who heads Canada’s minority conservative government, have seized upon remarks he made in a 2002 fundraising letter to blast his leadership on the issue of climate change.
In that letter, Harper described the Kyoto Protocol as “a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.” He voiced his support for the “campaign to block the job-killing, economy-destroying Kyoto accord,” an agreement he said was “based on tentative and contradictory scientific evidence about climate trends.”
He was right on all counts.
Agreeing with him are 60 leading scientists who in April wrote Harper an open letter, published in the Canadian Financial Post, asking him to keep his pledge to review Canada’s commitment to the Kyoto Protocol.
“Global climate,” said the scientists, “changes all the time due to natural causes, and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.’
“If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”
They add that “activists (attempt) to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified.”
Kyoto committed Canada to cutting emissions of greenhouse gases by 6% from 1990 levels by 2012. Emissions are about 35% above the target and continue to rise. It’s a nearly impossible job. The European Union, which made similar pledges, has failed to meet its targets. Its CO2 emissions are rising twice as fast as those of the heretical U.S. since Kyoto.
The simple reality is that no nation can continue to grow economically without its emissions growing. It is also true that Kyoto is a recipe for global poverty. The annual loss for the U.S., according to the U.N.’s own figures, could be as high as 1.96% of GDP.
Today’s $1.3 trillion economy would take a $260 billion hit every year — totaling more than $11 trillion by 2050.
So in the absence of sound science and the presence of demonstrable economic harm, what is driving the global warmers with such passion?
Simply a passion for global redistribution of power and wealth.
The operative word here, after all, is “global.” Like those in the U.S. who don’t think states can handle their own affairs and do want all power concentrated in Washington, global warmers feel that only international action can overcome national resistance and, yes, national sovereignty.
Remember the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST)? The Convention on the Law of the Sea would have done to our maritime activities — military and economic — what the International Criminal Court would have done to our criminal justice system — place it under the thumb of a supranational body like the corrupt and discredited United Nations.
LOST would have created an international agency to regulate 70% of the earth’s surface, placing seabed mining, fishing rights and deep-sea oil exploration under the control of a global bureaucracy. President Reagan didn’t think the U.S. should be part of that resource grab and global redistribution of wealth.
Harper may just have finally called a spade a spade. But he’s not the only one.
More recently, Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus, an economist, harshly denounced the recent U.N. global warming report, saying it was the result of a group of “politicized scientists” who decided the results of the report before they began their investigation.
“Global warming is a false myth, and every serious scientist says so,” Klaus told Hospodarska Niny, a Czech Republic economics newspaper. “It’s obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.”
Sounds just like Harper. Come to think of it, sounds too like Australian Prime Minister John Howard, also a global warming skeptic. And Klaus, who lived under a communist regime most of his life, should know. He saw firsthand how communism crushes all dissent, making it impossible for debate or alternative views to be aired.
So it is with global warming, Klaus notes. The green leftists, such as Al Gore, say “debate is closed” because continued critical scrutiny of their faulty ideas is the one thing they know the other side has going for it.
Kyoto would punish the rich capitalist countries that foster innovation and growth with taxes and regulation, but let poorer countries, largely dictatorships or socialist economies that soak up foreign aid like a sponge, continue to pollute to catch up.
The left has always proclaimed that poor countries are poor only because the capitalist West has exploited them, just as they proclaim the capitalist West has exploited Earth. Kyoto is the lefties’ and greenies’ payback.
Karl Marx once said the goal of communism was a system that extracted from each according to his ability to give to each according to his need. Come to think of it, Kyoto says the same thing.
Barbara, Seriously most people on cape cod don’t even want the PAVPAW radar station’s claiming that they cause cancer and a host of other maladies. But if it will help you keep your view, well then the PAVPAWS is sent from the gods? Even though the military says that the turbines will not effect the radar, I would just as soon take the radar out and leave the turbines. Most residents of Cape Cod felt that the radar should go a couple of years ago before the wind farm was an issue, its only now that the radar offers some half ass’ed attempt at stopping the wind farm that is has gotten any supporters. The enemy of my enemy is my friend? (which just barely applies in this case)
I have no idea what you are talking about with the Marx Socialism stuff, this is America. In America we are capitalists. People want to make money, and that’s what they do. I am trying to focus their money making desires into a business that will be good for the planet and its people. I hardly feel that has anything to do with socialism.
Naib:
Most people on Cape Cod and the Islands don’t want Cape Wind.
You can’t back this up, it’s untrue: “Even though the military says that the turbines will not effect the radar,,,”
The Congressional Defense Committee: “The Effect of Windmill Farms on Military Readiness†cites: “For UK air defense radars, the radar operators must be able to reliably track all aircraft that could pose a threat. The operators must include the ability to track by primary radar alone if necessary. UK studies to date have concluded that the radar’s probability of detection is reduced in air space over wind turbines due to technical aspects of radars and the large cross section of wind turbines, and no mitigation solutions have yet proven the required level of radar coverage. On this basis, the UK Ministry of Defense must be consulted on all proposed wind turbines that are within the radar line of site of an air defense radar, regardless of distance.â€
“The results from those flight trials documented that state-of-the-art utility class wind turbines can have a significant impact on the operational capabilities of military air defense radar systems. The results demonstrated that the large radar cross section of a wind turbine combined with Doppler frequency shift produced by its rotation blades can impact the ability of radar to discriminate the wind turbine from an aircraft. Those tests also demonstrated that the wind farms have the potential to degrade target tracking capabilities as a result of shadowing and clutter effects.â€
Opposed to Cape Wind: Kennedy, O’Leary, Delahunt, Atsalis, Gomes, Perry, Turkington, Turner; the towns of Barnstable, Chilmark, Edgartown, Mashpee, Nantucket, Yarmouth, Barnstable Assembly of Delegates, Cape Cod Chamber, Falmouth Chamber, Hyannis Chamber, M.V. Chamber, Nantucket Chamber, Chatham Chamber, Harwich Chamber, Yarmouth Chamber, many animal rights groups, commercial fishing interests, navigators of the airspace and of the waterway; 58% of Mashpee voters and 67% of Nantucket voters.
“Facts about wind energy are just beginning to catch up with the false and misleading information that has led to faulty government policies, tax breaks and subsidies. While government officials lavish tax breaks and subsidies on the wind industry, ordinary citizens around the world where “wind farms†have been built or are proposed are learning that the public, media and government officials have been badly misled about the costs and benefits of wind energy. As the facts are becoming known, opposition to “wind farms†is growing rapidly in US and other countries, including the UK, Germany, Denmark, Spain, Italy, France, Australia and New Zealand. Some 200 citizen-led opposition groups have emerged.”
Glenn Schleede
Capitalism is great! But, but what you think you’re getting for our money is what’s referred to as “faith based.”
The subject of the article is Global Warming.
“So in the absence of sound science and the presence of demonstrable economic harm, what is driving the global warmers with such passion? Simply a passion for global redistribution of power and wealth.”
Barbara…you mentioned that Deval Patrick’s approval of this Cape Wind Project is like putting lipstick on a pig. Well, my dear, you are a pig. I’ve been reading your skewed and clearly misinformed data in your many attempts to influence people who don’t understand the facts. In addition, I am a Republican who at one point would have followed Scott Brown to the voting booth. However, he is on the wrong side of this issue. Cape Wind and Martha Coakley both win in a landslide.
Hey Barbara…what’s with the sudden alliance with the Mashpee Wampanoag tribes? Nice try on that one!