Jump to content

Talk:Cape Wind

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Sinking Ship Picture

[edit]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
OK. I just needed someone else's opinion that's all :-) --cassini83 00:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, very little oil is used in electric generation in the US today. So the Cape Wind project may not have an effect on oil tankers (though I support the project for other reasons) --Amcalabrese 22:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very little oil is used for electric generation, except on Cape Cod. The Canal Power Plant, located on the Cape Cod side of the canal just north of the Sagamore bridge, is an old plant that is still powered by bunker oil. The Cape Wind project would directly offset the amount of oil needed to power Cape Cod. Publicus 14:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

My edits

[edit]

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)[reply]

Make Clear the Source of Current Cape Electricity

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.115.143 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 18 June 2006

Incidentally, even wind farms that displace coal-fired electricity also save a modest amount of petroleum during their operating lives, because coal gets mined and shipped primarily with equipment running on diesel fuel. Around 8% of the energy in delivered coal comes from petroleum, depending on the distance from mine to power plant, the type of mine, and whether the shipment is by railroad or the more energy-efficient river barges. For more information see:
  • "Energy Payback Period for Wind Turbines". Danish Wind Energy Association. Retrieved 2009-01-17.
Since a wind farm displaces some multiple of its weight in coal, the diesel fuel burned to construct the wind farm is probably somewhat less than the diesel fuel to mine and ship the equivalent amount of coal. However, it is true that wind farms in the US are not yet big offsetters of petroleum use. Cape Wind would be one of the rare exceptions. The Pickens Plan is one medium-term strategy to use wind farms to reduce petroleum consumption, by freeing up natural gas from power generation which could then power CNG-fueled heavy trucks, buses, and trains. Electrification of transport in the longer term could allow wind power to displace motor fuel directly, and seems necessary to meet the challenges of peak oil and global warming. --Teratornis (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about other places, but coal from Montana/Wyoming uses diesel for transportation, but electricity (mostly generated at coal fired plant) for mining. Aflafla1 (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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)[reply]

POV

[edit]

Article needs some serious cleanup to be in compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:ATT. Some examples:

  • "...focus on its ability to displace oil and gas consumption with clean, locally produced energy as well as the project being the best option for much needed new generating capacity."
  • "One of the reasons supporters like this project has to do with the potential for less oil to be used or shipped to the Cape Cod power plant."

Tag applied. /Blaxthos 22:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those summaries come from Reliable Sources, so I am not sure what WP:NPOV has to do with them. Was their content mis-reported? Abe Froman 22:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Making a characterization of "best option" is a subjective judgement -- a business wikipedia should avoid. A more neutral version would read something like "so and so believes that the project is the best option". These are just examples. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to dedicate to cleaning it up; I hope that my comments help. /Blaxthos 04:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph was about arguments by supporters, but I've edited it to make that clearer. I also took out a sentence that was garbled and, if it meant what I think, that this is the largest singe global warming reduction project in the US, is questionable.--agr 12:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The largest single existing global warming reduction project in the US is the Grand Coulee Dam, which by itself produced about half as much renewable electricity in 2008 as all wind farms in the US combined. Cape Wind will not even be the largest US wind farm when complete. However, Cape Wind may be the largest new global warming reduction project in Massachusetts for some time. --Teratornis (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

[edit]

Oppose merge. I don't see the need to merge Cape Wind Associates with this article. In fact, I think it would confuse things. Johnfos (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, they are two different things. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

[edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "sur" :
    • [http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-15-2007/0004646292&EDATE= Survey: Leadership on Cape Wind, Other Clean Energy Solutions to Global Warming Seen as Path to New 'Massachusetts Miracle']
    • [http://www.civilsocietyinsitute.com]

DumZiBoT (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Locator map

[edit]
Cape Wind is located in Massachusetts
Cape Wind
Cape Wind
class=notpageimage|
Wind power projects in Massachusetts
  Operating
  Under construction
  Proposed
  Canceled or decommissioned

Here is a location map template showing where Cape Wind will be. It may be possible to use the same template method to put a location marker onto the map in File:Massachusetts wind resource map 50m 800.jpg. Or the location map can go into the article in addition to the wind resource map. Comments? --Teratornis (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Later I learned that {{Location map}} can go in the extra field of {{Infobox power station}}, so I added one to the article. --Teratornis (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion piece reverted

[edit]

I rolled back these contributions by a new user. The edits violated WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. --Teratornis (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce poll

[edit]

I've edited the recent addition of the results of a Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce poll to reflect what the cited sources say. The Chamber polled its members, not the general public. Also note that press releases are not considered WP:reliable sources. If you want to include the Herald poll or the claim the electric rtes would double, you will need sources for those statements, not a press release. Also note the article already points out that the ballot questions were in towns not on the Cape. Repeating that is arguing a position. --agr (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) That the article provides a suspect air of having Cape Wind involvement or agenda is suggested by its very-public-relations-type spin and phrasing such as "best wind... by far", "the project envisions", "permits to be granted (not reviewed) as the project proceeds", etc. Further the article states - at its very beginning - that the status of the project is "approved", without mention of any of the on-going lawsuits and even disagreements within the Federal, State, and local governments as to how it will - ultimately - legally meet all Federal regulatory and Constitutional restrictions on private corporate development taking place on Federal (Public) lands. The article also completely omits any reference to very real and specific dissension that has taken place within the ranks of the the Audubon Club; the NRDC, and other environmental groups that officially approved the project based almost solely on its greenhouse gas mitigation, despite serious concerns by even the National Park Service and local Native-American tribes.

(2) The section entitled "Books" makes no suggestion whatsoever as to whether the the author's "statement" that the project is only opposed by "a very small group of people, with more money than most of us can possibly imagine..." even begins to approach fact, although this assertion haunts other portions of the article. I am a life-long Massachusetts resident - a proud working-middle-class American who took a twenty-five-year career jaunt into State government and major non-profit institutions as a Historical Architect and Preservation Specialist, and who also possesses a degree in Public Communications where I studied "uses of propaganda" courses under both Howard Zinn and Murray Yaeger ---- so I have had ample opportunity to well-witness manipulation created by media, government, corporate, and academic sources, and can well-recognize their motives. I can promise you that this working-class Massachusetts resident both values the viewshed of the natural resource known as Cape Cod Sound, and values it as a public place of escape and recreation free of both audible and visual intrusion. And I can provide the statements of at least three-dozen other working-class Massachusetts residents who feel the same.

(3) The entire section on "Public Opinion" is based on "surveys" and polls taken by questionable pro-corporate sources that are even more suspect than those that recently predicted Mitt Romney would by now be our next President of the United States. Not one of them asks direct questions pertaining to respondents opinions on visual intrusiveness and disturbance while recreating on public beaches, etc. I refer to my earlier statement above: I can provide the statements of at least three-dozen working-middle-class Massachusetts residents who support alternative, "clean energy" sources but feel the proposed Cape Sound project is at the very least visually intrusive and, if built, an industrial-appearing blight on what could be considered our very-publicly-owned ocean-front "Grand Canyon" (indeed, the section "Federal"(review) states that the National Park Service ruled that Nantucket Sound is eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places because of its cultural and spiritual significance. As a Preservation Professional, I personally would compare the project to the rise of an excessive amount of telephone poles in cities and urban areas at the turn-of-the-twentieth-century). Further, anyone who has ever lived and breathed in the United States will be at least minimally aware that thirty-to-seventy-five-percent of citizens are never even contacted during such polls --- I have never been contacted in my 53 years on any poll or survey, none of those I asked were ever polled or surveyed on Cape Wind, and just the very idea that the poor, the working-class, and others who are either desperately busy trying to survive and/or too economically marginalized to even consider maintaining a newspaper subscription (talk about being connected to the internet or attending public meetings), have in any way been included in this "community input" is patently absurd, and thus quoting and citing such polls and surveys is absurd, exclusive, and a means of manipulating information to achieve pre-desired results.

(4) The Section on "2012 Election" suggests that opposing Cape Wind is somehow restricted to those with a politically conservative agenda (actually to those who help create the Republican Party's agenda). I can promise you that very few of those I refer to in the paragraphs above are either registered Republicans or consider themselves in any way politically conservative. However, in the Section "Controversy", another suggestion that wealthy liberals have a personal agenda - and the power - to stop the project, begins to erode even the entire central premise and credibility of the article. It brings into question whether Massachusetts citizens have indeed received accurate information about the project to make an informed decision about it... it also erodes the idea that they can indeed trust anyone, including the proponents and developers of Cape Wind who - again - are not non-political angels from heaven but rather documented career-businessmen and salesmen who realistically have profit and ego as their primary incentives for the project, as clearly suggested by interviews of the project's chief Jim Gordon [1] Above by (Norumbegan (talk) 13:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

WP:reliable sources are one of the foundations of encyclopedias like Wikipedia. Supply those, and they may be considered for content. The controversy section of this article is already much bigger than in similar articles. TGCP (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/2009/06/jim-gordon

Orphaned references in Cape Wind

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Cape Wind's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "USowStrategy":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Cape Wind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Cape Wind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Cape Wind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Cape Wind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cape_Wind&oldid=1206537569"