Talk:Cape Wind

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

I looked at the pictures on the Cape Wind web site. It is more of an eye sore than I thought it would be. I thought the wind mills would be so far off that noone would be bothered, like the view from Martha's Vineyard. But the people on Cape Cod will have kind of an industrial looking view out at sea. It's not quite as benign as I imagined. Not a reason to kill the project outright. But it is more of a factor than I thought it would be. 24.225.177.164 23:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

They are visible, but whether they are an eyesore depends on ones point of view. I suspect many Cape residents seeing an oil tanker pass by in the distance consider it picturesque, yet they represent a technology that many feel is damaging the planet. Also see windmill for photos of wind power installations that locals consider cultural treasures. --agr 16:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've become interested in this topic, and the thing I'm having a hard time finding is how this site was chosen in the first place. I'd like to add something myself, but with quite a bit of Googling, all I find seems to have this as the location right from the beginning. To me, that really fuels the fire of the controversy. Does anyone have some more information? Cirejcon 19:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the list of references at the bottom of the Cape Wind article for more information. Abe Froman 19:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's not exactly jumping out at me. Let's see if I get this right... The project originated with Cape Wind Associates, who proposed this site from the beginning. Alternative sites were discussed in the environmental impact statement, at least partially in response to public feedback. These were dismissed for a number of reasons (some involving "unexploded ordinance" - yikes!). Is that roughly correct? Is there any more information on how Cape Wind Associates came to propose the site in the first place? There's one blurb at their site that says "why this is the ideal spot", but I don't see any direct comparisons to other sites. Cirejcon 00:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Good question. Cape Wind appears to be the first entity to propose the project. But someone had to think of it, first. Perhaps we could find a citation and information on the genesis of Cape Wind and improve the article with the information? Abe Froman 03:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the US wind map in the Wind power article, Image:US wind power map.gif, the offshore area around Massachusetts almost leaps out at you. Couple that with the obvious advantages of shallow water and proximity to an electricity market with high prices and it's not hard to see why developers consider this site ideal.--agr 11:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Sinking Ship Picture

The Argus picture is superfluous to what is being discussed. And alarming. Since it happened 30 years ago, and it is not at all clear whether a wind farm would have made any difference in the Argus ramming a stationary island, I do not think the picture should be included. Abe Froman 22:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
What I think is that wind power projects help us use less oil for power generation which means less tankers passing and less chances of spill like this one occurring. Besides the oil spill shows that the area is not the "pristine environment" some people claim it is. I agree the text under it was inappropriate though. Probably something like: "On December 15, 1976 the oil tanker Argo Merchant sank northwest of Nantucket spilling 7.7 million gallons of oil. It is believed that renewable energy projects like Cape wind will reduce the chance of catastrophic oil spills occurring." --cassini83 23:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
That's a stretch. The sinking ship image does not lend a pleasant atmosphere to the article, which is about wind power. The 30 year old Argus beaching does not have anything to do with the Cape project. The shipping channel information is already n the article. Let's leave it at that. Abe Froman 00:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
OK. I just needed someone else's opinion that's all :-) --cassini83 00:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the purpose of having Don Young's photo in the article?

There are several Mass. opponents, including Sen. Kennedy. Why is Young's photo in the article? --rogerd 02:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

We can add the other politicians. Highlighting the fact that the single congressman and the senior senator from Alaska are proposing legislation specific to a Massachussetts energy project is germane. Abe Froman 03:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
It smells like POV and advocacy to me. It seems like the editor who included that photo is trying make a point about congressmen from other parts of the country opposing the project. I think that mentioning his opposition is sufficent, but the photo is overkill. --rogerd 03:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, no need to have Young's picture in here. Why not add Robert and Ted Kennedy's pictures too? How about Romney's? Best to have none. $2 pistol 12:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I included Young's picture but I agree that it looks out of place now. You can go agead and delete it. --cassini83 14:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My edits

I didn't "mass delete" anything, I brought the text up to date. Don Young's proposal is no longer what's in the bill; a compromise has been struck, which my edits described. I did remove some redundancies, of course. (We don't need to mention twice that the governor can nix it.) I'd be glad to discuss any specific objections you have to my changes, but my version is more accurate and, I think, written better. $2 pistol 12:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Make Clear the Source of Current Cape Electricity

Some time ago I edited the article to include information on the current source of electricity for the Cape and most of the info was deleted. I didn't restore it, but it does seem relevant to me. Last I heard, only 2% of the US's electricity comes from burning oil, and with oil prices what they are, I suspect this has dropped. This means that most of the time the idea of wind power reducing oil usage is largely a myth. (only indirectly, like for replacing heating oil usage with electrical heat, but the same could be said for coal, nuclear, natural gas, etc.) But for Cape Cod, 45% of the current electricity comes from a powerplant that burns bunker oil and natural gas. While I'm not clear how much that powerplant currently burns in the way of oil (especially given current oil prices), the fact remains that the Cape Wind project is one of the few places in the country where wind power has the potential to directly offset petroleum usage. The article makes references to the project offsetting oil usage, but without describing the oil burning powerplant, how this is possible isn't made clear. And wasn't that powerplant the reason the oil tanker that crashed was near Cape Cod in the first place? My edits about the powerplant and its fuel sources were made on 1/19/2006. Please look into restoring that information, especially the links.

What you said makes sense. Feel free to add the info about the current oil usage for generating electricity in the cape cod area and don't forget to make a link to your sorces so it won't get deleted as a POV. If you can also find a source stat states the destination for that tanker that would be great. --cassini83 21:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

And done. My original edit did include sources, but it got wiped out anyway. I made note that Cape Wind would directly offset petroleum usage and noted below the edit that while it wasn't an oil spill, a recent (April, 2003) barge accident killed a lot of birds and shutdown 100,000 acres of shell fishing beds. That barge was carrying oil for the powerplant and such trips would likely be far rarer if the Cape Wind project were completed. I don't know where the spilled oil from the tanker was destined for. Are there any nearby refineries or was the powerplant the only possible destination?

I'm not sure if there's any refineries in the region. Too bad I haven't seen when your text was deleted. Sounds like vandalism to me. Could have been reverted. As for the oil tanker... it's Argo Merchant and according to the wikipedia article her destination was Boston. --cassini83 01:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Like I said above, the deletion occured on 1/19/2006 so if you go back in the history you can pinpoint when it was wiped out. I doubt it was vandalism and was probably most likely someone (mistakenly) believing that the info was irrelevant to the article. Still, since there is a controvery over Cape Wind, I guess it could have been a deletion by someone opposed to the project, though that sounds a bit conspiratorial to me. It's a moot point now that it's back, though.

Since America used to burn a considerable amount of oil for electricity, the Argo Merchant's oil might have been intended for a non-refinery source such as a powerplant in or near Boston. The oil was No. 6 fuel oil, which means it was already refined and that kind of oil would not make the best heating oil. ...Yeah, it was probably intended for a Boston powerplant.

[edit] External Links Section

In the external links section, the link to the capecodonline poll showing 80% approval is dead (I marked this as such on the main page, I am new, however, and unsure whether this was the correct action (tried to follow the Wikipedia:Cite_sources page). I could not find the page on archive.org or google cache, and some quick googling showed different results [1] [2]. I did not remove the link, as it did not seem to follow guidelines - is anyone able to find a working link to the poll mentioned? --Xul 03:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/p/Talk%7ECape_Wind_d887.html"