Branford Eagle

posted by: robn on July 12, 2010  12:48pm

Love you Rosa but you’re wrong.

posted by: Shoreline GreenDem on July 12, 2010  1:10pm

It is a sad day on the Connecticut shore when three strongly pro-environment Democrats lay out pernicious, counterfactual, NIMBYist positions against clean energy technology that would help cure our addiction to oil - foreign and domestic. 

Dan Malloy is incorrect that stationary wind turbines would generate a navigation threat in the Sound as compared to the current moving threats of oil and natural gas tankers - tankers which will continue to burn diesel fuel and pollute our air and water as long as we avoid making the tough decisions about alternative solutions.

Rosa DeLauro is incorrect that wind turbines are a bigger threat to the fishing industry than pollution from power plant cooling water, discharges from tankers, or the fishing vessels themselves.

Dick Blumenthal is incorrect that there isn’t enough wind in the Sound to justify turbines.  Wind experts in Connecticut have long been touting the viability of offshore turbines in the Sound - in fact the Sound and land immediately on shore is the only viable source of windpower in the State of Connecticut.  If Mr. Blumenthal thinks that pushing through wind turbine projects on valuable coastal land will be easier than offshore projects, he is sadly mistaken.

All three are incorrect that protecting Connecticut shores from wind turbine development is akin to protecting the Gulf of Mexico from oil spills.  In fact, continuing our dependence on oil and other non-renewable energy sources by sucking up gasoline at the pump and sending our tax dollars to Washington to subsidize oil company exploration - even if it’s not off shore or isn’t in the United States - is signing the death warrant for the environment in someone else’s backyard. 

Three Democrats who have made me proud to live in Connecticut in the past let me down today.  Those individuals with informed, careful opinions about energy and the environment will continue to push for wind development on our shores.

posted by: Tilting at Windmills on July 12, 2010  1:14pm

Not sure I understand Blumenthal on this one.  How does the Gulf Oil Spill do anything but make you want to build windmills in the Sound?

I have no idea if windmills in the sound will actually work—is there enough wind?

But if they would work, it would seem that windmills environmental impact would be almost non-existent.  Since none of these speakers had even a slight hint of science in their talking points, I feel no need to use any either. 

At a minimum, a windmill that breaks stops spinning around, it does not kill millions of fish and put out of business thousands of fishermen and tourism industry workers.

I opposed Islander East, the crazy liquefied natural gas barge project and other such incursions.

What I am not getting is what is the problem here?  Windmills would seem to only need to damage a few feet of ocean bottom and would want to be placed where the bottom is hard (i.e. not a reef).

Possibly the concern is not the windmills themselves but the cables carrying electricity from the windmills as these could stretch for miles.  But then is there a way to not have them hit particularly problematic locations?

I don’t know any answers from this article or from the politicians speaking here.  Maybe they are correct or maybe they are just worried that the views from rich people’s houses would be impacted in some minuscule way.

Windmills on the whole seem to be an important solution to our energy problems.  Politicians who give sound bite opposition to addressing our real energy and climate change concerns really need to do a better job not making it sound like they are just NIMBYers.

posted by: Bill on July 12, 2010  1:36pm

No off shore drilling, no turbines, no liquid gas, no alternatives, no, no. The party of NO!

How many cars did they drive to make this announcement?

posted by: Townie on July 12, 2010  1:36pm

I hate to say it but I agree with DeLauro and Blumenthal. Windmills would prove to be an unnessecary nagivational challenge to the large ships that use LIS. Also, there isn’t much wind in the LIS, especially points due west. As one goes east towards the race, Fisher’s Island, Block Island Sound, etc. it gets considerdably windier. That’s one of the reasons why ships use the LIS, its alot calmer than the Atlantic Ocean. I worked on a ship for some time that frequently opted to travel west to east from NYC to Boston using the LIS, we avoided a lot of rough weather in doing so. Windmills make more sense on the far east end of Long Island and would be perfect on the south shore of Long Island. But I really don’t see any great benefit if they were placed in the LIS, especially anywhere west of Saybrook.

posted by: Uncle Egg on July 12, 2010  1:45pm

Everyone agrees: Wind power is great ...

... somewhere else.

posted by: streever on July 12, 2010  2:00pm

I like all of these politicians but they failed this one. No one gets them all right, but I wish they didn’t get such a big one wrong.

posted by: Cedarhillresident on July 12, 2010  2:01pm

I am dittoing robin comment I love ya’s but that is just wrong.

We support it but you can’t put it in the only logical place…that kind of shoots the whole thing out of the water…right?

But I will again through out my Cedar Rail Yards suggestion

posted by: Steve B on July 12, 2010  2:45pm

Pathetic. It’s pretty clear these politicians started with the position (no windmills) and then worked backward to come up with a justification. Malloy is worried about navigation. Did he talk to the coast guard? DeLauro is concerned about the fishing industry. Did she talk to any fishermen?

“These fights have real life consequences.”  Yes, Dick, and so do our consumption decisions. Simply stating “it’s a good idea but not here” demonstrates no leadership at all.

As the previous commenter mentioned, we don’t know if they’re a good idea. But dismissing them off hand, without the research, is the height of political cynicism.

posted by: Daniel Casey on July 12, 2010  2:54pm

empty-headed stances
all three are completely on the wrong side of this issue
and what’s even sadder?
not a single person will vote against them because of it

not a single person

posted by: Townie on July 12, 2010  2:54pm

The LIS is not a “logical” place for wind turbines, at least not efficient ones. The dangers they would pose to vessel navigation far outweigh any possible benefit to the region’s energy needs. Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts should work together to fund and build a wind farm somewhere in Block Island Sound or perhaps Buzzard’s Bay.

posted by: Bruce on July 12, 2010  2:57pm

This “debate” is absurd.  There is no pending project or movement to put wind turbines in LI Sound.  Lamont took a very reasonable position—to collect information before making a decision.  Perhaps he will come to the same conclusion, but at least he will do it based on more than just a hunch.

posted by: Bruce on July 12, 2010  3:06pm

Also, let’s get the terminology straight here.  WindMILLS are have been used for centuries for grinding things like grain and corn or pumping water.  Wind TURBINES are used to generate electricity.

posted by: nfjanette on July 12, 2010  4:03pm

The LIS is not a “logical” place for wind turbines, at least not efficient ones

The test of that position is whether a private enterprise is willing to fund construction of such a wind farm.  I agree with a previous comment: these politicians started from a position rejecting the idea and then worked from there, rather than evaluating available facts and considering the possibilities.  There are many possible ideas that might preserve the interests of a wide range of people.

posted by: Beaufort scale on July 12, 2010  4:15pm

Long Island Sound is a poor location for turbines because even the zones rated a mediocre “good” for wind speed come at a high cost in terms of fishing and transportation impacts. ISO New England does not see these areas as viable for wind energy—it is a marginal wind zone. The best wind strength CT is in the NW hills of Litchfield County. The best ocean winds nearby are off the east and south shores of Long Island. See map:

http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/maps_template.asp?stateab=ct

posted by: robn on July 12, 2010  4:30pm

If you can’t spot a 100’ tower with warning lights, then you aren’t prepared to sail in the sound. There are far more teacherous things lurking below.(I.e. Rocks)

posted by: Scot on July 12, 2010  4:41pm

Could the NHI do a follow up article to provide more information?  I’m for renewable clean energy but I also think LI Sound is a precious resource that needs to be well protected.  How many wind turbines are they proposing?  over how many square miles?  where in LI sound would they be placed?  What is the environmental impact of intalling wind turbines to the ocean floor (specifically to shell fish/fishing industry)? How much energy would be created by the proposed wind farm? (enough to support a few towns, or an entire state?) How easy is it to dismantle wind turbines after they’ve reached their life expectancy (or after more efficient methods of creating energy are discovered)? would the wind farm area be off limits to boats (reducing the amount of fishing/boating area) or would boats be allowed to maneuver in and around the wind turbines? etc

I know one of the arguments against Islander East was that installing it would destroy oyster beds.  Would installing a wind farm do the same? 

I love the idea of using wind for energy but from what I’ve read it isn’t the most practical for large scale use.  It can only be a supplemental source. My initial opinion is that this is too much of a sacrifice for too small an amount of energy, but I would like to hear more.

posted by: Bran Flake on July 12, 2010  4:49pm

Oily Wind Mill Spill? No wind on LIS? just look at Dick’s hair. Takes 20 knots to raise that slick backed “do” up like that. You see it flying away in the photo. Fact if dicks’ hair’s blowturdin the wind then there’s enough power to juice up UI and CLP combined. I just don’t get it. I like that Mill in NH.

Oily slick on them Geeses? Geese’sre the same Canada type birds that tried to bring down Capt. Sully’s plane in the Hudson. Canada Gooses are terd dumpin’ bacteria dischargin’ cholera carryin’ terrorists. Them Canadians close more beaches and drop more planes than Saddam, the Ayatola, AlkAyatollah West Haven sewer treatment combined.

The people are hungry…. “let them have their cake and eat it too” Marie BLUMENTHAL Antionette.
StAntoinettestille and put these characters heads where they belong…into baskets.

posted by: DR on July 12, 2010  5:18pm

Shoreline GreenDem is correct. These pro-environment Democrats are wrong on this issue.
• I don’t understand Dan Malloy’s statement about “dangers.” What are the dangers?
• If Rosa DeLauro is concerned about the fishing industry, then maybe she should be in support of wind turbines in the Sound. Studies show that the seabed foundations of the turbines act as artificial reefs and increase the number of fish and crabs in the nearby area. “Dan Wilhelmsson of Stockholm University’s Zoology Department found that the seabed around wind turbines had higher densities of fish compared with areas further from the turbines and in reference areas…” (http://tinyurl.com/ygncvay.) See also http://tinyurl.com/33fcvao.
• Dick Blumenthal is wrong about the potential of the wind in the Sound. At a distance of about two miles from shore the wind in the Sound is rated as “Good” by the US Department of Energy. Phoenix Press seems happy with their wind turbine in a “Marginal” area. Wind potential decreases as one moves farther inland (except for a few hilltops (http://tinyurl.com/28dxt86).
If wind energy is to be in Connecticut’s mix, turbines should be located in the Sound.
The sure way to prevent another Gulf oil disaster is to get off our oil diet.
Whether wind energy is economical for Connecticut is another matter. But it should not be dismissed out-of-hand

posted by: robn on July 12, 2010  8:46pm

In this very forum, its been shown that wind turbines can be amortized in 4 to 5 years in the harbor, never mind out in the sound where wind speeds are higher. Add to that the real if not at this moment cash valuable carbon offset, and the fact that the only environmental concern is the cable lay, this is a no brainer. (unless you’re a politician vying foe the political support of people so selfish that they’d rather sacrifice a sustainable energy future for what they consider to be “their” view.)

posted by: William Kurtz on July 12, 2010  9:22pm

I believe Mr. Casey has hit the nail exactly on the head; DeLauro, Blumenthal and Malloy have taken the easy road standing on a dock in Stony Creek and appeasing the Thimble Island NIMBY-ists even if the rest of us vote for . . . who? Linda McMahon?  No, they’re right; they will likely not pay any electoral penalty for this ridiculous and premature position.  Everyone’s used to politicians not keeping promises; let’s hope this is one that gets broken if wind turbines should prove viable in the Sound.

Speaking of which . . . some anonymous posters who offer no way to evaluate their credibility say wind turbines won’t work.  It would perhaps be helpful if the Independent interviewed some experts on the record to provide some context.  It seems like there aren’t any actual proposals to put turbines in the Sound—should there be?  Or is this a non-issue?

posted by: Greenwash on July 12, 2010  9:53pm

Blumenthals 100% correct on this one. If we build windmills in the Sound they’ll be under water in five years. Global warming raises sea level. Lets just burn coal. It speeds up the process. More, faster, and cheaper are the American way. Then there’s more corporations in Ohio to sue if you don’t become a Senator and need a fall back option. Maybe make a movie like Inconvenient Truth to bore the voters into submission if it don’t work out. Now was it Kyoto George or Kyoto Al who did it. With all the ozone and carbon monoxide accumulating between my ears I just don’t remember. Oh, and I’m hot and uncomfortable. Too much effort is needed. So let’s just vote for the same old faces, or better still not go out to vote as it’s too hot. Global Warming. Dosn’t exist. Never can do, never will do. Just a figment of the imagination of the mentally ill. As an election issue its dead in the water. Like everything else on the planet in a few decades. Politicians included.

posted by: terrapin on July 12, 2010  11:02pm

That’s OK, Rosa. How about up on that ridge that Saint Ronan Street runs along? I bet the wind is pretty steady up there…

This smacks of Ted Kennedy being in favor of the environment, until windmills were to go up (barely) in sight of his neighborhood. Next thing you know, it took Cape Wind an extra 10 years to get approved. Everyone wants electricity, and everyone wants it to come from somewhere else.

posted by: Lisa on July 13, 2010  12:10am

Dumb, dumb, dumb. Just when I was starting to get proud of living here, driving past Phoenix Press’ single windmill in Fair Haven all the time. I hate election years. We should write to Rosa to let her know she’s wrong, at the very least.
Hmmmm, maybe we’d prefer an oil spill someday…..

posted by: Townie on July 13, 2010  7:08am

Quote from William Kurtz, “some anonymous posters who offer no way to evaluate their credibility say wind turbines won’t work.”

Kurtz- Beaufort Scale did offer a link to a study of wind power in the LIS, and this study clearly shows that the LIS is not a substantial source of wind. Anyone who grew up on the CT shore could tell you that the LIS is not a windy place when compared to the east end of Long Island, Block Island Sound or Buzzard’s Bay, its common sense that any true New Englander is aware of.  Long Island acts as a barrier to the Atlantic winds, hence the often minimal damage during low category hurricanes and tropical storms.
DeLauro and Blumenthal are correct in citing the dangers to maritime traffic as well as a potential impact on the fisheries in the LIS.
Also, we cannot compare this situation to the Kennedy situation and Nantucket Sound. That situation was purely a ploy by the wealthy property owners to move unsightly wind turbines from their multi-million dollar water views. Nantucket Sound is a much windier place than the LIS and turbines in that area would be beneficial to Massachusetts’ south shore and even the Boston Metro Area.
While I will never endorse Blumenthal or DeLauro for public office, I cannot criticize their stance on this issue, it is based on common sense. However, we should pressure our public officials to continue to explore viable options for wind power, including getting involved in or initiating collective efforts with our neighbors in Southern New England and Long Island.

posted by: DR on July 13, 2010  7:44am

Townie -
Beaufort Scale’s link does not show wind potential beyond the near shore. See my previous post for a map of the off shore rating.
That there are windier places than Long Island Sound does not make the Sound unsuitable for wind turbines.
What’s the basis for saying wind turbines would be a hazard to navigation? And how would they be less so in Block Island Sound or Buzzards Bay? Please provide a link.
As to fishing, see my previous post for studies showing improved fish populations near wind turbines. Provide a source to dispute this.

posted by: JBV on July 13, 2010  8:00am

This really should come as no surprise to anyone.

The three people you see in this picture are the most disingenuous kind of politician you will find anywhere. Instead of following Brian Driscoll’s pioneering lead to effecting a green paradigm shift, these people have gotten on the train but refuse to get off at the right stop.

They call themselves Democrats?

Why on Earth do we keep electing these people? We should set the example in LIS and hope the world pays attention. What is wrong with being a leader? Not that anyone of these three would get that. They are all political sheep just doing what their party leaders tell them to do.

What a shame.

posted by: Townie on July 13, 2010  8:33am

To DR: The wind in the LIS is not nearly as strong as the wind off of eastern Long Island and/or Block Island Sound, Buzzard’s Bay, the Atlantic Ocean. Would wind turbines work in Long Island Sound? Of course they would, but they would not work well and it would not be worth the cost and potential danger of constructing them. Our efforts should be concentrated in areas that would prove most productive.
As I stated earlier, I have helmed vessels that routinely traveled through LIS en route to New Bedford and Boston. Navigation in the LIS is somewhat tricky because it is relatively narrow and there is a lot of commercial and recreational traffic. Adding wind turbines would decrease the area of navigable water and could increase the likelihood of collisions, especially in bad weather. Buzzard’s Bay is probably not as good as an idea as Nantucket Sound or Block Island Sound. Both Nantucket and Block Island waterways offer a larger area of navigable water therefore making navigation around a turbine a lot easier.
I think an excellent idea would be for a wind farm off of the south shore of Long Island, with power lines directly linked to Southern New England.
Also, we should pass an ordinance that requires all tall buildings to put at least one wind turbine on their roof. For instance the new State Street Tower should have to put a turbine on their roof. This would lessen their dependence on the grid.

posted by: Shoreline GreenDem on July 13, 2010  8:45am

Thank you, DR.  While near shore wind is rated as fair to marginal by the US Dept. of Energy, this is more than satisfactory to generate significant energy from wind turbines.  Further off shore offers even more promising wind conditions.  Again, more promising locations elsewhere do not prohibit a successful wind installation here.  As the Phoenix Press turbine has shown us, a huge percentage of our electricity use can be provided by wind within a reasonable payoff time.

To Bruce, this debate is not absurd, it is timely and appropriate.  As for pending projects there are several pending on shore in the sound which constitute a small but growing movement towards wind power in CT.  One at least is advancing with permit and financial assistance from the City of New Haven which has made every effort to help businesses break their carbon-based energy habits.  As we have seen elsewhere in the United States (Cape Wind following Hull, MA, for example) and in many cases throughout Northern Europe, on shore wind development is almost always followed by the more cost effective and higher energy producing offshore development.  Still, I agree that all politicians considering energy development should become better educated before they speak out on issues they don’t fully understand.

posted by: John Minardi on July 13, 2010  9:01am

They want Green Jobs in Connecticut, as long they are are not in Connecticut.
Ridiculous.

posted by: Bruce on July 13, 2010  9:21am

Shoreline GreenDem:  Thanks for the info, but I can’t find anything about these projects.  Can you be more specific as to which plans you’re referring to, especially the one IN the Sound? The one pending New Haven project that I’m familiar with in (Small Wind Turbine Demo) is supported through the CT Clean Energy Fund, not municipal funds.

In any case, it seems foolish to draw a line in the sand without discussing a specific proposal (which they never mentioned).  That’s what I was calling absurd.  Are they discussing 2 turbines, or 1000?  What power rating?  Where would they be and how much clearance do ships need?  These politicians don’t seem to care, they are just telling the audience what they want to hear.

posted by: robn on July 13, 2010  10:25am

TOWNIE,

Regarding the economics of turbines in areas with less wind than Buzzard Bay but enough to generate reasonable amounts of electricity…. what if oil becomes scarce, dangerous to extract, and more expensive in the future….

...but that could never happen.

posted by: Townie on July 13, 2010  11:50am

To robn:
My point this entire thread has been that the amount of energy created by the limited wind in the LIS is not reasonable and cannot excuse the massive expense, both pecuniary and otherwise. Areas with more wind would produce more energy, therefore it is more cost effective to build turbines in those areas.
Also, wind power should not be seen as a permanent replacement for fossil fuel, coal or nuclear energy. It is a great resource for subsidizing our energy needs. Instead we should focus on solar power and hydro-electricity.
Also, oil has always been dangerous to extract. There are dangers in almost all methods of energy production/procurement, even wind power.
Knee jerk reactions, like building wind turbines in the LIS will do nothing to create lasting and effective means of ending our dependence on fossil fuel.
Finally, people should stop driving their cars if they’re so concerned about oil drilling. Until then they should stop expressing their “concern” for the environment, it’s disingenuous and hypocritical.

posted by: Shoreline GreenDem on July 13, 2010  12:01pm

Bruce: You won’t find much of anything online about proposed projects because they are in early planning phases but you can find information on them by going to town and city building or planning departments and asking about proposals or interest they have seen in wind turbine installations.  I didn’t mention any offshore turbines in the works, the one I did mention will be an onshore installation but hasn’t been widely publicized yet.

As far as CT Clean Energy Fund money, municipalities, such as New Haven, often assist in applying for larger grants such as those for wind turbines.  Even though the grant comes from the Clean Energy Fund, municipalities contribute funds for staffing and application guidance for such grants, as they have in the example you mentioned, hence my comment that municipalities provide financial assistance to such projects. 

You are completely correct that drawing lines in the sand without citing specifics is absurd, my apologies for the confusion.  In any case we both seem to agree that simply hearing a plea to voters without proof or facts to back it up is tired politicking and that energy alternatives, whatever their form may be, need to be advanced in CT.

posted by: cba on July 13, 2010  12:08pm

When did Rosa DeLauro and Dick ” Vietnam” Blumenthal become experts on energy production.  These two are professional politicians who only defend an issue position for those that scream the loudest.  Rosa would not know the front end of a turbine from a washer and Blumenthal’s track record on energy issues can be followed in the Connecticut Siting Council’s rulings.  It is time to issue these two clowns pink slips and vote them, but fear not they will not be without because they get lucrative pensions and medical benefits. In November NOI ( Not One Incumbent)!

posted by: windenergyadvocate on July 13, 2010  12:12pm

You would think since Blumenthal recently received a nice sum of political money from the Int’l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers   ($10,000) he would be pro-wind turbine wherever he can get them put up…and put his boys to work wiring ‘em up!

These three are all a bunch of nut jobs anyways.  Lets vote for something new and send Blumenthal packing this election cycle.  The man gets so much free press it is disgusting.

posted by: Bruce on July 13, 2010  2:43pm

SGD: Agree.

Townie: “...the amount of energy created by the limited wind in the LIS is not reasonable and cannot excuse the massive expense, both pecuniary and otherwise.”

This statement lacks: 1) the amount of energy that can be generated 2) project expense 3) environmental impact

Though I agree that LIS seems an unlikely place, I cringe when I hear such generalizations without facts—thus my initial reaction to this story.

posted by: Beaufort Scale on July 13, 2010  3:15pm

Shiver me timbers! This discussion is creating such powerful gale force winds we could replace the Millstone Nuclear Plant if our fingers can keep pace! To see more on the ISO-NE analysis on New England wind power sources, see:

http://www.iso-ne.com/committees/comm_wkgrps/othr/sas/mtrls/may212007/levitan_wind_study.pdf

Graphs and tables galore show that locations close to and beyond LIS are most suitable to investment and provide the greatest reliability. If you where an investor, which would you invest in?

posted by: BranFlake on July 13, 2010  3:45pm

Is this not Don Quixote? “I served in Vietnam .....now I joust windmills.” how ironic.

posted by: imfy511 on July 13, 2010  4:25pm

Yes, imfy does mean “In My Front Yard.” Rosa and Dick have helped us protect Long Island Sound in the past, but I think they’re wrong on this one.
There are many places in the Sound that are appropriate for gathering wind energy - places where commercial traffic would not dare to navigate - Long Sand Shoal and Six Mile Reef come to mind. Why not replace the sad looking (since 1938!)Branford Beacon with a graceful windmill? Other beacons, markers and buoys throughout the Sound can be adapted to perform the double duty of guarding safety and creating energy.Let’s be creative!

posted by: robn on July 13, 2010  6:09pm

TOWNIE,

The average American drives 13,000 miles per year. I drive an average of 3,000 so I’ll feel very free to comment on the subject of sustainability.

Phoenix Press has projected their turbine generation rate to amortize in less than 5 years. It doesn’t matter that it won’t replace fossil fuels entirely…it will replace some of it immediately and the technology is mature. There’s enough wind in the sound… its there and its ready to be harvested and it won’t stop until the sun dies which is 5 billion years away.

posted by: Creeker on July 13, 2010  7:52pm

I live in Branford and I don’t want windmills in the Sound. I’m glad Rosa DeLauro and Richard Blumenthal are listening to us. All the commenters here are the usual posters from New Haven who don’t have anything better to do with their lives. If they want windmills then put them in New Haven harbor. I’m sure their Mayor can get their States Marshall to pull in enough money to do it. Just leave me out. I’d rather say I live in Connceticut than Corrupticut even if it means being environmentally incorrect.

posted by: former Phoenix Press employee on July 13, 2010  10:49pm

As a former Phoenix Press employee, I’m especially saddened to see Rosa completely REVERSE her position on renewable energy in Connecticut by taking this position.

She stood outside Phoenix Press earlier this summer, with the camera crew rolling the tape, saying that the Driscoll family’s wind turbine at Phoenix Press is not only the FIRST industrial-sized wind turbine in Connecticut, but it won’t be the LAST one! She is a supporter of wind energy, and this is political posturing at it’s worst.

While I admire the Dems for sticking together on this issue, THERE ARE NO PROPOSED OFFSHORE PROJECTS IN CT, SO THIS IS A NON-ISSUE.

I completely diagree with their stance on this issue, since there’s no proposed project, they clearly haven’t taken the time to research the facts, and they obviously have taken ill with the same NIMBY sickness the residents they spoke in front of have: they want cellular service, but sued to prevent a tower from being built in Short Beach!

Wind turbines are beautiful, surprisingly quiet, and if you visit Phoenix Press at 15 James Street in New Haven, you’ll be amazed that a simple wind turbine can power a business, save them money, and ultimately, reduce the strain on the outdated regional electric grid.

Think about that next time you fire up your air conditioner at 2pm. It could be Phoenix Press’ wind turbine that’s preventing a brownout! It could be all the solar panels on residential roofs too!

The comments here are more in reference to lack of education on the topic at hand, NIMBYism, and rushing to “take a stand” during an election year. Looks like Lamont’s got my vote. That he took his time to research the issue is admirable.

posted by: Townie on July 14, 2010  7:02am

To Bruce, Et al.- Anyone who grew up on the shore could easily conclude that the amount of wind in the LIS is not enough to create any substantial benefit to the power grid that supplied Southern New England. Sure, the turbine that Phoenix put up works for them, a relatively small building. However, we are talking about thousands (if not millions) of homes and businesses that need to be supplied. Any wind project in the LIS would most likely include the construction of not one, but several turbines. This would create substantial navigation problems for the commercial and recreational maritime traffic, with very little effect on our dependence on our current sources of electricity. Exhaustive studies are not needed to reach a common sense conclusion and we shouldn’t waste any time or funding on them.
A lot of liberals hear the words “green” or “alternative energy” and immediately jump on the bandwagon and anyone who opposes the idea is automatically cast as a proponent of big businesses, oil companies/drilling and environmental degradation. But, these same liberals are all too happy to consume the very product they are opposed to. It is time to realistically explore alternative options for our energy needs. However, catchy rhetoric and partisan hyperbole do nothing to advance the discussion and establish practical remedies. We all have to recognize that we love oil and our life would be dramatically worse without it. Once we deal with our own hypocrisy we can hopefully move towards a reasonable solution to a “problem” we all helped create and we all benefit from.
The disaster in the gulf did not happen to us, we created it. Our mindless consumption and lust made such a disaster inevitable. We are all to blame and we all must bear the burden.

posted by: Bruce on July 14, 2010  8:46am

Townie: “Anyone who grew up on the shore could easily conclude that the amount of wind in the LIS is not enough to create any substantial benefit to the power grid”

You can’t “easily conclude” anything of the sort.  Did you grow up 50-100m in the air?  Is every square inch of the sound critical for maritime traffic?  Sorry to beat a dead horse, but presenting unsubstantiated opinions as fact only weakens the credibility of an argument.  I agree that LIS seems like an unsuitable place, but I wouldn’t dare say that without backing it up.  There are a LOT of factors to consider (see Beaufort Scale’s link). 

Hand-picking a couple points to support a pre-existing opinion is no way to manage critical infrastructure.  I would hope these politicians review any proposal thoroughly and with an open mind.

posted by: scjerry on July 14, 2010  5:56pm

Good going Beaufort Scale. A little science goes a long ways. Unfortunately, hysteria and politically motivated rhetoric goes further.  Windmill driven turbines also require substantial support infrastructure. Apparently, some windmill advocates (of which I am one) forgot about the environmental impacts of interconnecting an array of wind turbines to the grid. I’m sure the references Beaufort Scale cites speak to the difficulty with grid interfacing to intermittent sources, but probably don’t address the environmental impacts of burying cables in the ocean floor or towers with high-tension lines and shore-based facilities, particularly with an antiquated grid already in need of upgrading. Rational siting of a centralized array of windmill driven turbines in even high-wind areas still require an onerous investment and produces a substantial environmental impact (which no one wants to pay for) , no matter the specious claims about return on investment. Energy conservation and distributed energy sources continue to be the solution.

posted by: lol on July 14, 2010  6:23pm

Surprise surprise, a hipocritical lib.

Put the damn things in the water….and get over it.

Low wind? The little on in New Haven turns just fine doesn’t it? It’s better then nothing to say the least

The people that buy “green” cars and complain abut the bad pollution, ect are the same idiots opposing the turbines once it comes to their area…...

Vote these bums out at some point people, wake up liberals!