On Jul 25, 10:36*am, dpb wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , dpb wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:32:56 GMT, "JC"
wrote:

. * The last thing we need to do is
turn a beautiful ocean view into an industrial one. *
What about the view from the water?
We don't seem to mind turning the beach into condos and parking lots
Not to mention the 2-legged whales in droves... *
* This is also why people fight the idea of public beaches. They want
theirs and then everyone else is on their own.

Or, what's so different to watching a multi-thousand ton ship that is
supposedly "scenic" as compared to a windmill that takes up far less
area--just that it stays still??? *It seems somehow an incongruous
argument to me...

--

* *Ships come and go (most importantly here "go") while a windmill is
forever. I would bet that is the argument. Also depends on the ship. I
know a couple of people who got their condos near the cruise port
because they got a kick out of watching them come and go. Sorta like
people used to do with trains.

So the ships can come (and go ) in front of and behind the
windmill...the cattle do here and people stop to take 'pichurs' ...

--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


The point is to get any reasonable amount of power from windmills you
need not, one "plant", not one ship, but thousands of them. And
IMO, putting these 375 foot tall structures offshore and ruining the
view when they are within sight of land is a major issue and would be
a big mistake.

I already stated that here we have one nuke within 20 miles of my
house. We have 3 more nukes in NJ. I'd be happy if they built
more. I'd be happy if they opened up offshore to drilling, out of
sight of land. I'd be OK with windmills located offshore out of sight
from the beach. We have fall out in pollution from the coal fired
plants to our west. We have major oil refineries supplying many
other states with gasoline and diesel. Must we have to agree that
windmills off the beach are a great idea too, just to make you
happy?