Bring It On!

Electricity Generated by Natural Gas, Coal, or Wind? Hmmm?

May 7th, 2007 | by Matthew OKeefe |

Given the choice when presented the need for another power generating plant and the fact that global warming is a growing reality then one would tend to think that Green Energy is the way to go. In Delaware they are debating and discussing this issue and just as Wind Power offshore is a heated topic on Cape Cod it is ramping up for the Oceanside communities of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.

Over at the Washington Post they have this to say about it…

Delaware Energy Debate Could Turn on the Wind

Offshore Turbines Among 3 Proposals
By David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 7, 2007

REHOBOTH BEACH, Del. — Two hundred towering windmills, each so tall that its blades would loom over the U.S. Capitol Dome, could be built in the Atlantic Ocean near one of Washingtonians’ favorite beach retreats, under a plan being considered in Delaware.

The plan, which could create the first wind “farm” in waters along the East Coast, envisions a thicket of turbines offshore of either Rehoboth Beach or Bethany Beach, Del. As the blades are spun by ocean winds, designers say, the wind farm could provide enough power every year for 130,000 homes. – Washington Post

I’d like to leave this issue up for discussion for the folks of Delaware to decide but is it just an issue for them to discuss? As Americans we all need to get behind the wheel of the global warming bus and drive this discussion in directions that are not harmful to our children’s environment and future.

Personally, I would rather be inconvenienced by the barely visible fuzzy sight of two hundred wind mills that are six to ten miles offshore than live just down the street from a natural gas or coal fired generating plant. That’s just me though.

Cross Posted at Papamoka Straight Talk

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 4 Responses to “Electricity Generated by Natural Gas, Coal, or Wind? Hmmm?”

  2. By Liberal Jarhead on May 8, 2007 | Reply

    You’re right - a minor aesthetic flaw is a tiny tradeoff for cleaner air (the better to see the rest of the view with) and less dependence on foreign energy sources equalling improved national security and balance of trade.
    As well as the offshore sites, the southwest, where I live, averages strong enough prevailing winds in a lot of places to generate huge amounts of power, and there are a lot of places to put wind farms - solar energy farms as well, since this is the sunniest part of the nation.

    We should set up a national infrastructure, a project like the interstate highway system - build wind and solar energy complexes in the west, build a flood containment system in the east to collect the excess water from the floods that happen somewhere or other every year, and trade energy from the west for water from the east. We need the water, everyone needs the energy and the east could use our excess.

  3. By Paul Merda on May 8, 2007 | Reply

    It’s kinda sad that the states are pushing for green energy while our Federal government is mired in stupidity… Go Delaware!

  4. By manapp99 on May 8, 2007 | Reply

    Wind farms have faced opposition for years from what would normally be thought of as pro enviroment people. This is what greenpeace has to say about the wind farm proposed for Mass. near the Kennedy compound:

    “The maneuver to stop the wind farm ”is clearly a backroom deal, and they’re going to get called publicly on it,” said John Passacantando, executive director of Greenpeace USA. ”The Democrats are going to kill the first big offshore wind farm in the United States because of their relationship with Ted Kennedy.”"

    This is Ted’s rebutt:

    “Kennedy rejected suggestions that he doesn’t like the wind farm because it would be near his Cape home, and said the project probably wouldn’t be visible from the Kennedy compound. He said he’s against the project because it would create a range of environmental and navigational problems and would hurt tourism, one of the area’s key industries.”

    So is he saying he is putting big tourism ahead of the enviroment?

    Even little Bobby Jr. is against the windfarm.

    Here RFK jr says this:

    “In mid-December, Kennedy, wanting to explain his position to critics and the public at large, published an impassioned op-ed in The New York Times in which he argued that the wind farm would mar a precious seascape, privatize a publicly owned commons, and damage the local economy.”

    And let’s not forget the bird and bat issue when it comes to wind power. This from the American Bird Conservancy:

    “Wind energy production may affect birds through:
    1) Mortality from collisions with the turbine blades, towers, power lines, or with other related structures, and electrocution on power lines;
    2) Avoidance of the wind turbines and habitat surrounding them; and
    3) Direct habitat impacts from the turbines’ footprint, roads, power lines, and auxiliary buildings.”

    Go figure. Like they say in Texas. When it comes to the envrioment the Kennedys are all hat and no cattle.

  5. By Liberal Jarhead on May 8, 2007 | Reply

    There are ways to engineer wind systems to make them collision-safe for birds and bats; that’s just not a reason not to build them. Avoidance of the wind turbines an issue? Since when has it been a problem for birds to have to fly a detour of a few yards to go around things? Doesn’t bother anyone when they’re putting up buildings. The habitat impact (roads, etc.) is irrelevant for offshore plants. None of those criticisms are valid here.

    And as far as damage to the local economy, since when has job creation been a bad thing? When I was stationed at 29 Palms and they built a wind farm nearby, it provided a range of jobs for the local area - one of the Marines in my shop who got out around that time even got a job doing data systems support for the computers that were part of that system.

Post a Comment