Being a big fan of alternative energy sources, I’m excited to hear about the possibility of two offshore wind farms near Long Island and Nantucket.
The two projects, one south of Long Island, in New York, and one in Massachusetts’ Nantucket Sound, are currently moving through the complicated process of securing permits from various agencies, and both could be turning out juice in a few years. Offshore wind farms — row after row of massive wind turbines sprouting from the sea miles from land — have become a relatively common source of commercial electrical power in Europe, but these would be the first in this country.
But of course, the yachting set on Nantucket have to bring the “not in my backyard” attitude, claiming environmental impact, but ultimately seeming mostly worried about their million dollar views:
She said that about half the fish that commercial fisherman catch in Nantucket Sound come from the area where Cape Wind wants to install windmills. In addition, she said that a commercial wind farm would mar the pristine ocean views, dragging down both tourism and local property values. She cited a study conducted by The Beacon Hill Institute that concluded that total property values in the area would fall by $1.35 billion. “If you have a direct view, the value of your home would go down,” she said. The wind farm “would be highly visible. It would change the tranquility of the horizon markedly.”
What a crock. The pros of offshore windfarming far outweigh any potential cons in my opinion.
So what’s the crock? The part about the windfarm being built in what are now fishing grounds, or the part about it lowering property values?
Why don’t groups build windfarms on dumps or wastelands? Why do they seem to be targeting the oceans? Maybe it’s because if you go far enough offshore you can try to escape state jurisdiction.
The major benefit of offshoring is wind consitency. Plus just the availability of space — They got nowhere to put a windfarm *on* Long Island.
The major crock is that people are claiming environmental worries, but are obviously more concerned with their own “investments”. They are trying to use a bunch of FUD to keep their own interests protected. I just don’t buy the idea of a windfarm three miles off shore dramatically dropping real estate values.
As for the fishing grounds… I’m sure someone much more research minded than myself could find references for how the many sea-bound windfarms in Europe affected the fishing industry there.
OK, I’ll give you Long Island, but there’s no place else in Massachusetts for a wind farm? Heck, they just stuck a windmill on the side of the road near UMass Boston and the Southeast Expressway (see http://www.ibew.org/articles/05journal/0509/p14_windmill.htm).
Also, just because the article used the hook of richies worried about their property and view doesn’t mean that the woman they interviewed emphasized that point when asked. Plus, and I’m just playing devil’s advocate here, but might the complaints of the people that own that pricey real estate actually cause property to lose value?
The Nantucket windfarm proposal has been marred by dirty pool being played on both sides.
I don’t know of many places you can put a large scale windfarm at least 3 miles away from civilization in Mass. And who knows if those places have worthwhile wind?
I’ll grant you that the article paints the picture it wants to paint and that I my own opinions are basically right in line with that point of view.
And politicians are assholes around the world.
With those concessions, however, I’ll just repeat that I don’t buy any environmental argument against wind farms. Given that, the whole thing boils down to asthetics from my angle and that’s just lame (in my opinion — I like the way wind farms look.). Check this quote:
So, he doesn’t want to see lights on the night horizon? Really? (I know, that’s not the entire argument being presented, but…)
_______________________________
Some links:
These four have basically the same content, so the number or sources means nothing: Cape Wind, AWEA, Long Island, Greenpeace (Yeah, Greenpeace… I know.)
Tons of stuff at the Cape Cod Times
The one source I put the most stock in: Union of Concerned Scientists
I read some of the UCS stuff, seems like they are saying that terrestrial windfarms can easily be managed for multiple uses (i.e. farmland, grazeland, etc.). I still think land is the way to go.