The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

In brief:

1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

It should be noted this is not a comprehensive list.

• Don't insult one another or the subjects of BDN stories. You may be ticked off at what someone did or said, but you can explain that without resorting to name-calling or obscenity. Remember that young people are on this site too.
• That nasty line that makes your buddies go "haw, haw"? You're better than that.
• Comments should be your own work, not copied and pasted from elsewhere, though brief quoted passages to make your point are fine. And please don't use all capital letters. There's no need to shout.
• Stay focused on the issue in the article. Off-topic posts will be deleted.
• This isn't a forum to chat about your personal life.
• Some ideas — the fate of the earth, abortion, gun control, the nature of God — aren't going to be resolved in a reader forum, so no need to get frustrated if others don't see your point of view. State your position once and leave it at that.
• If you mouse over each comment you will see a "Flag" button. Please use it if you feel comments on the site are out of line. Quite often, we won't see a comment until it's reported.
• Questions about why a comment was — or wasn't — deleted? E-mail us at web@bangordailynews.com and let us know your username and where you posted or saw the comment.

• Anonymous

  If this project is eventually built as a grid scale wind power project the cost of the electricity generated will be astronomical.  If inland wind power costs 2-3 times that of any other source what will it cost to do in in the ocean?  And if land based turbines only have a true expected lifespan of 12-15 years, what will happen to these with the very severe winter weather and the corrosion issues they’ll face?  A fool’s folly for sure.     

• Patten_Pete

  This is feelgood fairy dust that will not work. The 7 cents per KWH in 2030  is more than a pipedream, it is a bald faced lie. Rhode Island is looking a 24 cents in the hear and now. 

• Anonymous

  “Bill Follett, senior project engineer at Cianbro, said the cooperation between UMaine, his company, BIW and other firms has made the project work so far”. ————– Sorry Mr. Follett, was is making the project work is unsustainable subsidization from the flat broke American taxpayer. This stuff can’t survive on its own – by a long shot and will die a miserable death when the subsidies and stimulus funds are permanently gone in the not too distant future.

  What is it exactly Mr. Hart and Mr. Dagher that you don’t understand about the $14 trillion national debt?

  Meanwhile, natural gas fracked from shale will provide a 160 year abundance of a domestic and relatively clean fuel. It is the reason T. Boone Pickens has thrown wind power out of his “Pickens Plan”. And 160 years from now we’ll have fuel sources of the future that cannot even be imagined now. Such is the history of science. Instead, these cretins are going backwards in time to a useless failed technology. Wind was replaced by the steam engine for a reason — it is essentially useless and its output can’t be stored.

  Obama was pushing his tired “Green Jobs” agenda again today, this time at LED manufacturer Cree. But the company’s growth seems mostly to be happening in China, where more than 50 percent of the company’s workforce now resides. Cree took money borrowed from China at the expense of American taxpayers to subsidize Chinese jobs.

  November 2012 cannot come soon enough.

• Anonymous

  “Bill Follett, senior project engineer at Cianbro, said the cooperation between UMaine, his company, BIW and other firms has made the project work so far”. ————– Sorry Mr. Follett, was is making the project work is unsustainable subsidization from the flat broke American taxpayer. This stuff can’t survive on its own – by a long shot and will die a miserable death when the subsidies and stimulus funds are permanently gone in the not too distant future.

  What is it exactly Mr. Hart and Mr. Dagher that you don’t understand about the $14 trillion national debt?

  Meanwhile, natural gas fracked from shale will provide a 160 year abundance of a domestic and relatively clean fuel. It is the reason T. Boone Pickens has thrown wind power out of his “Pickens Plan”. And 160 years from now we’ll have fuel sources of the future that cannot even be imagined now. Such is the history of science. Instead, these cretins are going backwards in time to a useless failed technology. Wind was replaced by the steam engine for a reason — it is essentially useless and its output can’t be stored.

  Obama was pushing his tired “Green Jobs” agenda again today, this time at LED manufacturer Cree. But the company’s growth seems mostly to be happening in China, where more than 50 percent of the company’s workforce now resides. Cree took money borrowed from China at the expense of American taxpayers to subsidize Chinese jobs.

  November 2012 cannot come soon enough.

• Anonymous

  “Bill Follett, senior project engineer at Cianbro, said the cooperation between UMaine, his company, BIW and other firms has made the project work so far”. ————– Sorry Mr. Follett, was is making the project work is unsustainable subsidization from the flat broke American taxpayer. This stuff can’t survive on its own – by a long shot and will die a miserable death when the subsidies and stimulus funds are permanently gone in the not too distant future.

  What is it exactly Mr. Hart and Mr. Dagher that you don’t understand about the $14 trillion national debt?

  Meanwhile, natural gas fracked from shale will provide a 160 year abundance of a domestic and relatively clean fuel. It is the reason T. Boone Pickens has thrown wind power out of his “Pickens Plan”. And 160 years from now we’ll have fuel sources of the future that cannot even be imagined now. Such is the history of science. Instead, these cretins are going backwards in time to a useless failed technology. Wind was replaced by the steam engine for a reason — it is essentially useless and its output can’t be stored.

  Obama was pushing his tired “Green Jobs” agenda again today, this time at LED manufacturer Cree. But the company’s growth seems mostly to be happening in China, where more than 50 percent of the company’s workforce now resides. Cree took money borrowed from China at the expense of American taxpayers to subsidize Chinese jobs.

  November 2012 cannot come soon enough.

• Anonymous

  How do they figure a tidal generator is more expensive than deep water floating turbines however many feet high? The maintenance costs would have to be more too. The tidal gen. could be pulled up fixed and replaced before the boat was halfway out in the ocean. I think we are hearing the promo BS so typical of the onshore wind industry. At least they are not in the mtns. but I think tidal is more reasonable than wind. Cats catch more birds?  Two wrongs do not make a right. Here is one better: The earth will be destroyed in 5 billion years anyway so why take care of anything? 

• Anonymous

  How do they figure a tidal generator is more expensive than deep water floating turbines however many feet high? The maintenance costs would have to be more too. The tidal gen. could be pulled up fixed and replaced before the boat was halfway out in the ocean. I think we are hearing the promo BS so typical of the onshore wind industry. At least they are not in the mtns. but I think tidal is more reasonable than wind. Cats catch more birds?  Two wrongs do not make a right. Here is one better: The earth will be destroyed in 5 billion years anyway so why take care of anything? 

• https://me.yahoo.com/a/qD27wDV0m.h3NTahGt9XXmbiL5pzyvZC8k2TLVU2qmScdalecwc4cQ--#b0bd2 The_Greek_SailorBC

  You mean 21 December 2012.  The Mayan’s have it right.
   
  But, tell me, the Indian Tribes in Maine…or at least one of them are into energy in some form…and last year while I visited Maine, I spoke with someone about this company the Indians have come up with.  I think the BDN has some articles on this although I cannot seem to locate them now. 

  It would be appropriate to learn about other alternate forms of energy also, when it comes to the drama of the COST factors involved and transmission costs from these generators and spinning turbines offshore in Maine waters, people need to know.

  From what I know, while it is true other foreign countries have wind power (along with biomass, thermal and solar as well as the everlasting hydro power sources), wind power is not for everyone.  It is not a “one size fits all” situation.   I like the studies being done for proof purposes, but at the end of the day, is this type of power really going to be as effective as thought in the pricing of the energy?

• http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1165255103 Ron Huber

  It’s up to Judge Hjelm of the Maine Superior Court, who is considering revoking  DeepCwind’s permission slip from the Bureau of Parks and Land to operate their test sites off Monhegan.
  see http://tinyurl.com/3gh9blh

   Reasons include  USFWS,  BPL  and DeepCwind’s own contractor   determining that  veritable storms of birds flow seasonally right through that reach, right in the chop zone. DeepCwind response: they’ll “monitor” bird impacts – a comical offer given much migration is at night, let alone the turbines being 2+ miles from observers on Monhegan. 

  Judge might not be so sympathetic either to the  BPL nonsense declaring the views from Monhegan’s Lobster Cove to be  of minimal quality and hardly worthy of protection. That’s the cove and view that hundreds of painters from around the world  expensively visit every year to paint and be inspired by.  Why, ponders the judge, why does the state’s public lands officials give such short shrift to these irreplaceable scenic assets?

• Anonymous

  Sounds like there is some good potential to come from all of this.  It also seems like there has been some good planning in regards to studying the impact on the environment.  It’s got to be a lot less harmful than an oil spill!  In germany, they have had off shore wind farms for years and some preliminary studies they are conducting showed that during the building process, whales fled the area, but now they have been observed to return.  In addition to that, the installations of the turbines seem to function as an artifical coral reef that attracts mussels, sea anemones, and oysters and local fisherman are hopeful that this will help the fish population to grow.  Norway has had deep sea wind turbines for a while.  At least there is data available to from other projects to analyze.  I am keeping an open mind.

• http://twitter.com/TheHumbleFarmer Robert Karl Skoglund

   We are addicted to energy. The sad news for oil and coal companies is that an alternative must soon be found for fossil fuels.

   Missteps will be inevitable, but the cutting edge of today’s science indicates that wind power is viable and, according to wind resource maps, there is a wicked amount of moving air off the coast of Maine.

  The humble Farmer

• Anonymous

  Most of it coming from the some guy who calls himself the Humble Farmer.

• Anonymous

  What? I don’t see any waves or chop in the photo. Looks like no wind there.

• Anonymous

  You and the other people who think this way is the reason the state of Me is twenty years behind times. I am all for natural gas to and there is and abundance of it, but try to get it into the rural areas where there is no industry and see what it will cost you,been there and done it is very costly and because it is not concerned a natural resource it is hard to find grants to help out so good luck.

• Anonymous

  Maine is Perfect for Wind energy…. Oil will be $20 per Gallon in ten years… excellent electric cars will be available in 1o years…  Go for wind…!!!

• Anonymous

  This is an indefensible argument.  We are placing a prototype scaled turbine temporarily.  This is also 2011, monitoring birds day or night is not a problem.  We have the capacity to do that.  Your “comical” comment is devaluative not critical. 

  The number of birds that could be harmed by the extremely small footprint of this prototype is likely very small.  Its one temporary turbine Mr. Huber.  The research it will produce is important for us all.

• Anonymous

  Enroncrookss writes: “How do they figure a tidal generator is more expensive than deep water
  floating turbines however many feet high? The maintenance costs would
  have to be more too.” If  you were really interested in the answer to this question you would dump the sarcasm and conspiracy theory and legitimately try to answer it.  In and of its self its a good question.  But your point isn’t really to ask anything rather to make a flip remark you cant defend with a logical argument.  Not helpful.

• Anonymous

  Its gonna take one helluva transmission line to transport that electricity from 10 miles offshore to the grid.

• Anonymous

  good point.

• Anonymous

  for shallow water wind with yesterday’s technology

• Anonymous

  All Bullcrap… If windpower was so great the the private sector would have perfected it long ago… Government funding a private company (corporate welfare) to do something worthless… If it is such a great idea big oil and coal would have lobbied to kill windpower  welfare…..Ask TeeBone Pickings why he ran so fast from wind power,  he’ll sell you a wind mill, he has a billion dollars worth of them for sale…

• Anonymous

  Mr. Huber talks of the expense to visit Monhegan. What about the expense incurred by the local volunteers that had to perform a search and rescue to find him when he became lost on the “island he knows so much about”.  He presents so many mistruths about the turbines “chop zone”. He should take the energy and money wasted on a frivolous lawsuit to actually educate himself and others. It is absolutely false that birds will be cut up like a food processor in “the chop zone”.  It is the potential for birds to strike the towers on which the turbines are mounted that is being studied.  Far, far more birds are killed by striking the windows of  houses.  Why is he not suing every home owner for having windows in their houses?  Fear mongering is all this is.

• Anonymous

  Mr. Huber talks of the expense to visit Monhegan. What about the expense incurred by the local volunteers that had to perform a search and rescue to find him when he became lost on the “island he knows so much about”.  He presents so many mistruths about the turbines “chop zone”. He should take the energy and money wasted on a frivolous lawsuit to actually educate himself and others. It is absolutely false that birds will be cut up like a food processor in “the chop zone”.  It is the potential for birds to strike the towers on which the turbines are mounted that is being studied.  Far, far more birds are killed by striking the windows of  houses.  Why is he not suing every home owner for having windows in their houses?  Fear mongering is all this is.

• Anonymous

  Mr. Huber talks of the expense to visit Monhegan. What about the expense incurred by the local volunteers that had to perform a search and rescue to find him when he became lost on the “island he knows so much about”.  He presents so many mistruths about the turbines “chop zone”. He should take the energy and money wasted on a frivolous lawsuit to actually educate himself and others. It is absolutely false that birds will be cut up like a food processor in “the chop zone”.  It is the potential for birds to strike the towers on which the turbines are mounted that is being studied.  Far, far more birds are killed by striking the windows of  houses.  Why is he not suing every home owner for having windows in their houses?  Fear mongering is all this is.

• Anonymous

  It’s probably a good thing that we experiment with some alternatives to our finite and ever dwindling oil supply. Maybe wind power won’t be the final solution, but we’ll never know if we don’t try. My guess is that the future of power generation won’t be a one horse show, but will rather be a combination of wind, solar, hydro and tidal. Or maybe something else.
  One this I am sure of, is that injecting known carcinogens into out water table to “frack” up a little more oil/gas is a very short sighted plan.

• Anonymous

  The government will do anything to keep from useing the  engrgy we have in the ground…Want some energy bring back the   huge hydro project in the bay of fundy….China has just build the biggest hydro dam in the world….while the US plays with wind and sun…..no wonder we are a joke to the rest of the world!!!!

• Anonymous

  Did they bring their big fat scam detectors? Or are they in on the gravy train as well?

• Anonymous

  Did they bring their big fat scam detectors? Or are they in on the gravy train as well?

• Anonymous

  “To make deep-sea wind power economically feasible off Maine, there would have to be a 1,000 megawatt wind farm. That would provide roughly the power of one nuclear plant, and would consist of 200 five-megawatt turbines in a square area roughly eight miles by eight miles.”

  That is a whole lot of area.
  Hydro and Nuclear is the way to go…

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AZKVSFSE75FTVAMTYF2KDYRXP4 Kevin Smith

  The money flow into UMaine has changes since Dagher started is great project jumping pocket lining stradegy.  What is dissappointing to the american tax payer and the people of maine is for all the bonds, state money and fedral money pumped into Dagher’s pet projects all he has to show for it is a huge building full of expensive equipemnt that we have to heat and keep people on the pay roll to run.  In a more business lead part of our economy Dagher’s ideas would have never gone any further than the break room vending machine, chips or nuts.

  Even if he convinced one individual to invest time and money after his first failure he would be in the CAD department for the rest of his carrer double checking the numbers.  By the way he has been on the board of many start-up in Maine based on his patents, which he convinces his students to lead and as far as I know they have all failed or stagnet.

  Have we really gotten our money worth, just Google Dagher and tally the number of great projects he get grants for and how many are susssesful.  I know of no other individual who is given this kind of latatude.

  But the times have changed and the free goverment money is over, now we are just stuck with a big building and salries to pay, hope we can keep the lights on,

• Anonymous

  Why the kid gloves for this otherwise obscure professor? 

• Anonymous

  There are less than 20,000 wind turbines in the U.S. and there are several hundred million windows. Thus your comparison, taken right out of the playbook the wind industry uses everywhere, is not valid. Pound for pound, wind turbines, with their 200 mph tip speeds are highly lethal to individual birds (and bats) and potentially damaging to populations.

  Shill!

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VMGD4EFRQIGDJVBLBZYK677BC4 Christopher

  Elaborate on how you plan to monitor bird traffic since it is apparent you work for the AEWC whether you’re an engineer or the PR group. Something tells me your not an engineer based on the two attacks you’ve posted thus far instead of an informative rebuttal. 

  I’d like to know what your plan is for monitoring birds throughout this test period, and how it will relate to the full size turbines. 

• Anonymous

  So how Many Acres do you have to flood to get 1,000 Hydro Megawatts?

  So how Many Acres do you have to committ to safe Nuclear Waste Disposal?

  Lets go even further, how Many Acres of Clear Cuts to support a 1,000 Megawatt biomass?

  Opps! Forgot, Then you have to bury the Boiler ash!

  So, How is 64 Square Miles of Ocean Surface Even Relevant?

• Anonymous

  So how Many Acres do you have to flood to get 1,000 Hydro Megawatts?

  So how Many Acres do you have to committ to safe Nuclear Waste Disposal?

  Lets go even further, how Many Acres of Clear Cuts to support a 1,000 Megawatt biomass?

  Opps! Forgot, Then you have to bury the Boiler ash!

  So, How is 64 Square Miles of Ocean Surface Even Relevant?

• Anonymous

  So how Many Acres do you have to flood to get 1,000 Hydro Megawatts?

  So how Many Acres do you have to committ to safe Nuclear Waste Disposal?

  Lets go even further, how Many Acres of Clear Cuts to support a 1,000 Megawatt biomass?

  Opps! Forgot, Then you have to bury the Boiler ash!

  So, How is 64 Square Miles of Ocean Surface Even Relevant?

• Anonymous

  I’d like to know, too…especially since, according to my readings, these radar units have some distance limitations – how do we know how far this type of radar can detect things as small as birds?  I’ve read that it may only be to a little over 2-3 miles.  How far out is this test site?  and are there some endangered birds that could be involved?  Seems like we need to know answers to these questions.  Isn’t there UMO research that shows that thousands (I think I read as many as a half million) of birds fly over that area on migration? (Is this research getting suppressed?)  Birders report huge numbers of birds (warblers, terns, owls, shorebirds) migrating along our coasts.  Didn’t BRI do a study showing owls migrating offshore?  What about bats? I think these issues were brought up at a recent meeting sponsored by the Wildlife Society in Orono.  What is deepcwind doing to address that? 

• Anonymous

  If you’re a fisherman trying to make a living from those 64 sq miles, it becomes very relevant.

• Anonymous

  If you’re a fisherman trying to make a living from those 64 sq miles, it becomes very relevant.

• Anonymous

  If you’re a fisherman trying to make a living from those 64 sq miles, it becomes very relevant.

• Anonymous

  If you’re a fisherman trying to make a living from those 64 sq miles, it becomes very relevant.

• Anonymous

  If the grid can even handle the extra energy.

• Anonymous

  Well your supposition that I work for AEWC in any capacity is incorrect.  Nor am I an engineer. I am a social scientist.  My rebuttals critique the logic of the arguments.  I reject the premises and thereby the assertions.  That’s not an attack in my opinion. It’s responsible critical thinking.

  I do however call into question how argumentation loaded with values out of balance with logic can be all that useful.  Enroncrooks (Provocative name)  asked a fair question… if only it were a question and not a loaded statement.  Chritopher, if I am attacking by challenging such comments then so be it.

  As for your question about the plan to monitor birds throughout this test period, I support the question.  I don’t know the answer but I assume methodology has been crafted for just this.  I assume because I am a social scientist and as such I understand the ethics of research.  I know the folks involved in this project and they are decent conscientious people interested in improving the world.  That’s an assumption on my part, I am comfortable making it.

  Does the research team have all the answers?  No. That is the point of research. Are they trying to dupe tax payers? Of course not. I have no reason to consider them scoundrels are make derogatory assumptions without really good reasons to.  That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to be critical.  There are indeed risks.

  Along with your question, you also have to explore and understand the parameters of the project as a whole.  After all, how generalizable is a down-scaled prototype that is going to be tested in a area 50ish miles closer to the shore then is currently being imagined for the full scale wind farm?  What are the research priorities of this test site?  Generally a prototype is intended to explore feasibility and scope.  In this case, as is the case with any technology intended to harvesting energy from the planet, there is an environmental impact. Hands down.  Testing as to what that impact will be must be part of the research and I presume it is.

  Energy production will not ever be cheap.  In order to maintain the quality of living we seem to want we must produce the requisite energy.  That will cost treasure, among other things.  I think we must do this research in order to advance the technology and diversify our energy production technologies.  Lets not forget that oil production is highly subsidized, receives  numerous tax advantages and has dramatic negative environmental impact.

• Anonymous

  Well your supposition that I work for AEWC in any capacity is incorrect.  Nor am I an engineer. I am a social scientist.  My rebuttals critique the logic of the arguments.  I reject the premises and thereby the assertions.  That’s not an attack in my opinion. It’s responsible critical thinking.

  I do however call into question how argumentation loaded with values out of balance with logic can be all that useful.  Enroncrooks (Provocative name)  asked a fair question… if only it were a question and not a loaded statement.  Chritopher, if I am attacking by challenging such comments then so be it.

  As for your question about the plan to monitor birds throughout this test period, I support the question.  I don’t know the answer but I assume methodology has been crafted for just this.  I assume because I am a social scientist and as such I understand the ethics of research.  I know the folks involved in this project and they are decent conscientious people interested in improving the world.  That’s an assumption on my part, I am comfortable making it.

  Does the research team have all the answers?  No. That is the point of research. Are they trying to dupe tax payers? Of course not. I have no reason to consider them scoundrels are make derogatory assumptions without really good reasons to.  That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to be critical.  There are indeed risks.

  Along with your question, you also have to explore and understand the parameters of the project as a whole.  After all, how generalizable is a down-scaled prototype that is going to be tested in a area 50ish miles closer to the shore then is currently being imagined for the full scale wind farm?  What are the research priorities of this test site?  Generally a prototype is intended to explore feasibility and scope.  In this case, as is the case with any technology intended to harvesting energy from the planet, there is an environmental impact. Hands down.  Testing as to what that impact will be must be part of the research and I presume it is.

  Energy production will not ever be cheap.  In order to maintain the quality of living we seem to want we must produce the requisite energy.  That will cost treasure, among other things.  I think we must do this research in order to advance the technology and diversify our energy production technologies.  Lets not forget that oil production is highly subsidized, receives  numerous tax advantages and has dramatic negative environmental impact.

• Anonymous

  Well your supposition that I work for AEWC in any capacity is incorrect.  Nor am I an engineer. I am a social scientist.  My rebuttals critique the logic of the arguments.  I reject the premises and thereby the assertions.  That’s not an attack in my opinion. It’s responsible critical thinking.

  I do however call into question how argumentation loaded with values out of balance with logic can be all that useful.  Enroncrooks (Provocative name)  asked a fair question… if only it were a question and not a loaded statement.  Chritopher, if I am attacking by challenging such comments then so be it.

  As for your question about the plan to monitor birds throughout this test period, I support the question.  I don’t know the answer but I assume methodology has been crafted for just this.  I assume because I am a social scientist and as such I understand the ethics of research.  I know the folks involved in this project and they are decent conscientious people interested in improving the world.  That’s an assumption on my part, I am comfortable making it.

  Does the research team have all the answers?  No. That is the point of research. Are they trying to dupe tax payers? Of course not. I have no reason to consider them scoundrels are make derogatory assumptions without really good reasons to.  That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to be critical.  There are indeed risks.

  Along with your question, you also have to explore and understand the parameters of the project as a whole.  After all, how generalizable is a down-scaled prototype that is going to be tested in a area 50ish miles closer to the shore then is currently being imagined for the full scale wind farm?  What are the research priorities of this test site?  Generally a prototype is intended to explore feasibility and scope.  In this case, as is the case with any technology intended to harvesting energy from the planet, there is an environmental impact. Hands down.  Testing as to what that impact will be must be part of the research and I presume it is.

  Energy production will not ever be cheap.  In order to maintain the quality of living we seem to want we must produce the requisite energy.  That will cost treasure, among other things.  I think we must do this research in order to advance the technology and diversify our energy production technologies.  Lets not forget that oil production is highly subsidized, receives  numerous tax advantages and has dramatic negative environmental impact.

• Anonymous

  Well your supposition that I work for AEWC in any capacity is incorrect.  Nor am I an engineer. I am a social scientist.  My rebuttals critique the logic of the arguments.  I reject the premises and thereby the assertions.  That’s not an attack in my opinion. It’s responsible critical thinking.

  I do however call into question how argumentation loaded with values out of balance with logic can be all that useful.  Enroncrooks (Provocative name)  asked a fair question… if only it were a question and not a loaded statement.  Chritopher, if I am attacking by challenging such comments then so be it.

  As for your question about the plan to monitor birds throughout this test period, I support the question.  I don’t know the answer but I assume methodology has been crafted for just this.  I assume because I am a social scientist and as such I understand the ethics of research.  I know the folks involved in this project and they are decent conscientious people interested in improving the world.  That’s an assumption on my part, I am comfortable making it.

  Does the research team have all the answers?  No. That is the point of research. Are they trying to dupe tax payers? Of course not. I have no reason to consider them scoundrels are make derogatory assumptions without really good reasons to.  That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to be critical.  There are indeed risks.

  Along with your question, you also have to explore and understand the parameters of the project as a whole.  After all, how generalizable is a down-scaled prototype that is going to be tested in a area 50ish miles closer to the shore then is currently being imagined for the full scale wind farm?  What are the research priorities of this test site?  Generally a prototype is intended to explore feasibility and scope.  In this case, as is the case with any technology intended to harvesting energy from the planet, there is an environmental impact. Hands down.  Testing as to what that impact will be must be part of the research and I presume it is.

  Energy production will not ever be cheap.  In order to maintain the quality of living we seem to want we must produce the requisite energy.  That will cost treasure, among other things.  I think we must do this research in order to advance the technology and diversify our energy production technologies.  Lets not forget that oil production is highly subsidized, receives  numerous tax advantages and has dramatic negative environmental impact.

• Anonymous

  where to you get your statistics? Coal is a fossil fuel and there’s enough in the ground for a long long time.  Ditto for oil if  drilling restrictions are eased. You apparently have not had the pleasure of sitting in a sailboat in the Gulf of Maine waiting for the wind to come up.

• Anonymous

  where to you get your statistics? Coal is a fossil fuel and there’s enough in the ground for a long long time.  Ditto for oil if  drilling restrictions are eased. You apparently have not had the pleasure of sitting in a sailboat in the Gulf of Maine waiting for the wind to come up.

• Anonymous

  Not 64 square miles thats for sure….Flooded land, no biggie. Just adds more water for fishing.
   I’m not for biomass..
  Get a hell of a lot more power out of Nuclear and Hydro that’s for sure.
  A lot more bang for your buck.

• Anonymous

  Not 64 square miles thats for sure….Flooded land, no biggie. Just adds more water for fishing.
   I’m not for biomass..
  Get a hell of a lot more power out of Nuclear and Hydro that’s for sure.
  A lot more bang for your buck.

• Anonymous

  What if jaws swims up from Ma and chews the transmission line in half?

• Anonymous

  Slack tide. And they were in the eye of the storm.

• Anonymous

  This is the industrialization of the Gulf of Maine! 

  The Gulf of Maine is a biological treasure that we must protect against this industrial mining.

  One Hundred floating factories producing 2 megawatts each and also producing 24/7 low frequency sound waves that will create an adverse environment for marine life miles and miles beyond the perimeter of any given wind farm.  And this is just the proposed beginning.  Beware!

  Don’t let them tell you the sound pollution is benign and harmless.  For some creatures maybe it is.   But for others, they will avoid the area and the web of life will be impacted significantly.  No one knows exactly what the effects will be.  They do not know and they are not going to find out.  They’ll just ramrod the permits through in the name of National energy security and then keep the adverse effects as quiet as they can.

  In power generation, whatever the source, they make greater profits, by going big, with centralized generation machinery.  That’s how they make big money.  But the environment loses every time!  This is no exception.  Protect the Gulf!

• Anonymous

  How is it that you know more about offshore wind engineering than a team of lifelong scientists working for the University of Maine?  Just curious about your technical credentials.

• Anonymous

  “What is it exactly Mr. Hart and Mr. Dagher that you don’t understand about the $14 trillion national debt?”

  Yet, you have no problem with tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies going to big oil and other fossil fuel conglomerates.  Also, you swallow the petroleum industry hoopla regarding a supposed supply of gas that will last 160 years.  Even if the reserves actually exist, it still has to be extracted.  That means potentially ruinous environmental damage caused by fracking, for one thing.  It also means there will be NIMBYs who may fight that fracking every step of the way, thereby raising costs for the developer and increasing the eventual pricetag for the consumer. 

  Why do you seem so eager to swallow fossil fuel propaganda hook line and sinker?  Where is your skepticism with regard to that industry which has polluted the Gulf of Mexico and other immense bodies of water (extremely expensive clean ups), led to foreign wars (extremely expensive operational costs and even worse cost in terms of lives maimed or lost), and gouged the public while gobbling your subsidies at 7 times the magnitude that is received by renewables?

  Just curious.

• Anonymous

  Don’t forget what happened to the mountains of West Virginia when people decided coal needed to brought from the ground.

  Coal Mining Mountaintop Removal:
  http://cchronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/mtn1.jpg

  Don’t forget what happened to the Gulf of Mexico last year, and what could happen to the fishing and lobster industry off the coast of Maine and in other clean seas if oil drilling is allowed there. 

• Anonymous

  Don’t forget what happened to the mountains of West Virginia when people decided coal needed to brought from the ground.

  Coal Mining Mountaintop Removal:
  http://cchronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/mtn1.jpg

  Don’t forget what happened to the Gulf of Mexico last year, and what could happen to the fishing and lobster industry off the coast of Maine and in other clean seas if oil drilling is allowed there. 

• Anonymous

  The “technical credentials” of the men in the photo do nothing to change the reality of economics.  They can legislate this subsidy and create a tax break here, and a tax break there, but the straight fact of the matter is that market economics defeats their objective from the outset. 

  Nonetheless, I am sure they enjoy a boat ride here and there, all the while telling you just how great everything will be if they get their way…… and then laugh all the way to the bank!  

• Anonymous

  The “technical credentials” of the men in the photo do nothing to change the reality of economics.  They can legislate this subsidy and create a tax break here, and a tax break there, but the straight fact of the matter is that market economics defeats their objective from the outset. 

  Nonetheless, I am sure they enjoy a boat ride here and there, all the while telling you just how great everything will be if they get their way…… and then laugh all the way to the bank!  

• Anonymous

  Then all of those tens of billions of dollars worth of government fossil fuel subsidies would dry up (and the Big Five oil CEOs told congress earlier this year that if anyone messed with their subsidies, then the price of fuel would go through the roof, even though the oil industry is raking in record profits). 

  We wouldn’t be sending our armies overseas on obscenely expensive wars to protect oil supplies, and we wouldn’t be using billions more in taxpayer funding to clean up oil spills and nuke disasters.  We’d save a ton of money, but would the fossil fuel industry be able to survive on its own?

• Anonymous

  Who says the United States is a joke to the rest of the world?  American inventors have created the world’s first airplanes, lunar spacecraft, nuclear power, electric lighting, the assembly line, steel ships, and skyscrapers, to name a few of our technical accomplishments.  Americans can build anything.  Maybe it’s your attitude about American ingenuity that falls short.

• Anonymous

  Who says the United States is a joke to the rest of the world?  American inventors have created the world’s first airplanes, lunar spacecraft, nuclear power, electric lighting, the assembly line, steel ships, and skyscrapers, to name a few of our technical accomplishments.  Americans can build anything.  Maybe it’s your attitude about American ingenuity that falls short.

• Anonymous

  Billy, I think Maineislander’s logic is right on the money.  Household pets kill a thousand times more birds than the wind industry.  Yet you and your colleagues haven’t organized a witch hunt against pet owners.  Maybe you should consider speaking out against pet owners and window owners if you are truly so concerned about birds.

• Anonymous

  LOL … yes, you will literally get astronomically more bang for your buck when it comes to nukes like Chernobyl and Fukishima.

• Anonymous

  LOL … yes, you will literally get astronomically more bang for your buck when it comes to nukes like Chernobyl and Fukishima.

• Anonymous

  LOL … yes, you will literally get astronomically more bang for your buck when it comes to nukes like Chernobyl and Fukishima.

• Anonymous

  Do you have any empirical proof that offshore windmills harm fishing?

• Anonymous

  Every invention, including aircraft, steel ships, nuclear power, etc., was just an unmarketable pipe dream until inventive people transformed the ideas into economic engines.

• Anonymous

  Every invention, including aircraft, steel ships, nuclear power, etc., was just an unmarketable pipe dream until inventive people transformed the ideas into economic engines.

• Anonymous

  Gee, where do turbines come from?  I think iron, mined, uh…much like in West Virginia…and then there are the rare minerals for the motors  – mineral mining that creates toxic wasteland – as in Mongolia and China.  Then there’s the cement pad – for the land-based projects.    I’m just trying to figure out how the production of wind turbines doesn’t have any env’l impacts….I think Weisser’s 2007 paper in the Journal of Energy shows that cradle-to-grave greenhouse gas production per kw of electrical energy produced for wind is not the best deal compared to other renewables…just sayin’….  Why do the proponents of wind energy always frame ‘oil versus wind’?  There are other sources of renewable energy out there…..and here, in Maine, we need to support them more – except that, I forgot, the money to be made from wind energy development benefits the few at the expense of the many, and it is the few who make it an ‘oil versus wind’ argument…

• Anonymous

  With all due respect, Lifetime, your logic behind your argument would suggest that we should only find cures for the #1 or #2 causes of human health issues, and ignore #3 and beyond because they don’t matter.  Does that really make sense?   I
   think we should get pet owners to become more responsible AND prevent other sources of mortality for wildlife.  How do you know ‘Billy’ isn’t an advocate for responsible pet ownership?  I didn’t detect anything in the post that suggested anything either way. 

• Anonymous

  With all due respect, Lifetime, your logic behind your argument would suggest that we should only find cures for the #1 or #2 causes of human health issues, and ignore #3 and beyond because they don’t matter.  Does that really make sense?   I
   think we should get pet owners to become more responsible AND prevent other sources of mortality for wildlife.  How do you know ‘Billy’ isn’t an advocate for responsible pet ownership?  I didn’t detect anything in the post that suggested anything either way. 

• Anonymous

  With all due respect, Lifetime, your logic behind your argument would suggest that we should only find cures for the #1 or #2 causes of human health issues, and ignore #3 and beyond because they don’t matter.  Does that really make sense?   I
   think we should get pet owners to become more responsible AND prevent other sources of mortality for wildlife.  How do you know ‘Billy’ isn’t an advocate for responsible pet ownership?  I didn’t detect anything in the post that suggested anything either way. 

• Anonymous

  With all due respect, Lifetime, your logic behind your argument would suggest that we should only find cures for the #1 or #2 causes of human health issues, and ignore #3 and beyond because they don’t matter.  Does that really make sense?   I
   think we should get pet owners to become more responsible AND prevent other sources of mortality for wildlife.  How do you know ‘Billy’ isn’t an advocate for responsible pet ownership?  I didn’t detect anything in the post that suggested anything either way. 

• Anonymous

  You have no data to support your statements about impacts to wildlife by this or any other obstruction in the ocean environment.  Comparisons to European farms are not valid as those farms are in shallow water and there are different kinds of wildlife there compared to here.  I’m not aware that any assessment has been made public for the University’s project.

• Anonymous

  You have no data to support your statements about impacts to wildlife by this or any other obstruction in the ocean environment.  Comparisons to European farms are not valid as those farms are in shallow water and there are different kinds of wildlife there compared to here.  I’m not aware that any assessment has been made public for the University’s project.

• Anonymous

  Just consider other types of renewables and not focus entirely on wind.  The disturbance footprint of the construction, deployment, and operation of wind turbines is often, depending on the situation, much greater than other renewable sources. 

• Anonymous

  Just consider other types of renewables and not focus entirely on wind.  The disturbance footprint of the construction, deployment, and operation of wind turbines is often, depending on the situation, much greater than other renewable sources. 

• Anonymous

  just because they are ‘lifelong scientists working for the University of Maine’ does not mean that they know (yet) about offshore wind engineering, either.  Granted, they are working on it…

• Anonymous

  just because they are ‘lifelong scientists working for the University of Maine’ does not mean that they know (yet) about offshore wind engineering, either.  Granted, they are working on it…

• Anonymous

  and subsequent generations paid for the environmental destruction and pollution as a result of many of those advances in technology. There are other costs to some of this technology that go beyond the financial/economic.

• Anonymous

  http://ahabsjournal.typepad.com/ahabs_journal/2011/04/safely-out-to-sea-windmills-the-invisible-fishing-industry-and-us-energy-.html

• Anonymous

  http://ahabsjournal.typepad.com/ahabs_journal/2011/04/safely-out-to-sea-windmills-the-invisible-fishing-industry-and-us-energy-.html

• Anonymous

  http://ahabsjournal.typepad.com/ahabs_journal/2011/04/safely-out-to-sea-windmills-the-invisible-fishing-industry-and-us-energy-.html

• Anonymous

  http://jjthefisherman.newsvine.com/_news/2011/02/08/6010276-filling-the-ocean-full-of-wind-mills-will-not-solve-americas-power-problems

• Anonymous

  “Why do the proponents of wind energy always frame ‘oil versus wind’?”

  In this instance, fossil fuels versus wind was the framework because I was responding to Surry Kid, who said that coal and oil are plentiful and preferable to wind power.

  I don’t disagree with you that all energy production creates environmental effects.  However, with the tremendous devastation wrought by coal mining, oil spills, and nuclear disasters, it seems wise to tap the brainpower at the University of Maine and allow them the chance to create the technology to harness wind power, which arguably has vastly less of an adverse impact on the environment compared to the other energy sources that I’ve mentioned. 

  An added incentive is the addition of manufacturing jobs that could be created for Mainers who would build the University’s inventions.  In my opinion, it’s as good a use of our tax dollars as compensating big oil for royalties paid to foreign countries for access to foreign oil supplies, or spending two billion dollars per week to subsidize our armies in the Middle East to protect oil supplies there.

• Anonymous

  http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2009/01/26/2357728-wind-energy-is-not-reliable-according-to-ferc-

• Anonymous

  I think they should give it a try… subsidies should be cut for oil compaines… I also believe that middle east wars are for oil… I just don’t believe windmills work Period and that they will only make their money selling carbon credits..

• Anonymous

  Plant, my point is that Patten Pete is “certain” that the ideas not only won’t work, but are also lies dreamt up by those evil University of Maine scientists.  I would tend to place my bets on the knowledge of UM scientists rather than on Pete, who is apparently quite untrained in terms of engineering knowledge.

• Anonymous

  Plant, my point is that Patten Pete is “certain” that the ideas not only won’t work, but are also lies dreamt up by those evil University of Maine scientists.  I would tend to place my bets on the knowledge of UM scientists rather than on Pete, who is apparently quite untrained in terms of engineering knowledge.

• Anonymous

  HELSINKI | Tue Jun 14, 2011 8:57am EDT
  (Reuters) – Finnish wind turbine and industry gear maker Moventas said it had filed for bankruptcy due to the recession, but is seeking corporate restructuring for its subsidiaries so they can continue operating. “With wind power we have been in recession for three years. This year will be quite bad for the whole western wind sector as well,” Moventas CEO Jukka Jaamaa told Reuters, citing order postponements and cancellations

• Anonymous

  HELSINKI | Tue Jun 14, 2011 8:57am EDT
  (Reuters) – Finnish wind turbine and industry gear maker Moventas said it had filed for bankruptcy due to the recession, but is seeking corporate restructuring for its subsidiaries so they can continue operating. “With wind power we have been in recession for three years. This year will be quite bad for the whole western wind sector as well,” Moventas CEO Jukka Jaamaa told Reuters, citing order postponements and cancellations

• Anonymous

  Yes, I agree with you that advances in technology often bring detrimental effects.  But the whole point of the research described in this article is to probe, and get a handle on any and all detrimental effects, which seems like a wise course.

• Anonymous

  Again, I agree with you that all renewables are worth considering in our energy portfolio.  It just so happens that the article under debate has to do with offshore wind research.  Maybe the scientists have a point when they say there are 5 gigawatts of wind energy 50 miles offshore.  Doesn’t it make sense to see if they might be correct?  And we don’t have to disregard other renewables in the process.

• Anonymous

  Perhaps you are correct about deep sea windmills not working.  But will we ever know, if we don’t give the scientists a serious chance to make their ideas work?

• Anonymous

  Thank you for the article.  However, I didn’t see scientific conclusions of any kind regarding the impact of offshore wind farms on fishing.

• Anonymous

  I guess, when I learned physics, I learned about the first law of conservation of matter and energy.  The Gulf of Maine ecosystem – its richness and complexity – has evolved as a result of all that ’5 gigawatts of wind energy’ – that energy goes into the natural ecosystem and plants and animals and the trophic systems that are a part of it have evolved with that energy.  What happens when you move that energy (transduced into electrical energy) on shore and out of the Gulf of Maine system?  Maine already produces enough energy for the state’s human consumption.  Why should we risk ruining this huge ecosystem that already supports humans throughout the world in so many ways?  I agree that we should explore this, but carefully, and with as much information as we can.  However, more funding goes towards energy extraction research than towards research that leads to a better understanding of and prevention of the environmental consequences. 

• Anonymous

  Pete’s statements about pricing are correct, as evidenced by the backing out of major and minor businesses in response to the changes in Cape Wind’s pricing. (and these same grumblings have been heard with respect to Maine – if Maine continues to promote production of expensive energy, it may counteract the argument about business development and jobs.)  The recent press releases about RI’s offshore wind pricing are rather scary.  I’m not sure if people are calculating these price projections on today’s standard without adjusting for inflation.  Also, most of the reviews say that hydro and solar have much lower costs per kw.  If economics for the consumer is one of the biggest factors in this mix, wind energy is a poor bet, I’m afraid.  In fact, one of the UM profs (Dr. Mark Anderson – an environmental economist) had an editorial a month or so ago, basically cautioning folks to not jump on the same old rhetoric bandwagon that has come about with each renewable energy ‘fad’.

• Anonymous

  You have much more faith about the environmental work reportedly being done than many others do.

• Anonymous

  And each of the inventions you mentioned were envisioned, created, and marketed WITHOUT a government subsidy.  They were created within a (somewhat) free market without the aid of our collective money. 

• Anonymous

  Indeed, the problem with the economics you are “taught” (indoctrinated with) is that your precious government has sanctioned the very laws and policies which allow people to ignore the true cost of such goods and services via “socialization” of waste disposal and simply charging a tax or fee to dispose of a product.  It is precisely because we have destroyed the private markets, most importantly concerning the environment and waste, that we have allowed these advances in technology to bring detrimental effects that we supposedly have no recourse in addressing.  Your failure lies in looking for the government to address environmental problems when you should be looking at humans acting freely within the market place.

• Anonymous

  Sorry buddy, but what in god’s name does wind “energy” that is ABOVE the surface of the water have to do with the ecosystem beneath?  As I recall, there are no specific wind driven ecological niches that we are potentially destroying by such endeavors.

• Anonymous

  “an alternative must soon be found for fossil fuels.”

  Hey Farmer, they’ve been sayin’ that since the thirties.  When are you hippy, communist control freaks driving your imported hybrid prius gonna give up?

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JWO3KMJD6UZMCBWYUA5IHRCS5M Thomas M

  I say that this is a better idea.

  http://www.openhydro.com/home.html

• Anonymous

  “with the tremendous devastation wrought by coal mining, oil spills, and nuclear disasters,”

  Really?  Where is all the “devastation”?  All I’ve heard of is the floods in the Mississippi and the tornadoes that have destroyed the lives of thousands of late.  Sure there are impacts.  But there are impacts from EVERY human activity, whether it is driving a car, riding a bike made of titanium or riding in a plane.  And, most importantly, when someone of your mindset, who has clearly not thought critically about the situation, and is acting on pure emotion, comes along and says that “wind power has arguably vastly less of an adverse impact on the environment compared to other energy sources”, I immediately question what you have said and, typically, it is with good reason……usually, the fact that you have employed very little reason and rationale in your argument. 

• Anonymous

  “with the tremendous devastation wrought by coal mining, oil spills, and nuclear disasters,”

  Really?  Where is all the “devastation”?  All I’ve heard of is the floods in the Mississippi and the tornadoes that have destroyed the lives of thousands of late.  Sure there are impacts.  But there are impacts from EVERY human activity, whether it is driving a car, riding a bike made of titanium or riding in a plane.  And, most importantly, when someone of your mindset, who has clearly not thought critically about the situation, and is acting on pure emotion, comes along and says that “wind power has arguably vastly less of an adverse impact on the environment compared to other energy sources”, I immediately question what you have said and, typically, it is with good reason……usually, the fact that you have employed very little reason and rationale in your argument. 

• Anonymous

  “with the tremendous devastation wrought by coal mining, oil spills, and nuclear disasters,”

  Really?  Where is all the “devastation”?  All I’ve heard of is the floods in the Mississippi and the tornadoes that have destroyed the lives of thousands of late.  Sure there are impacts.  But there are impacts from EVERY human activity, whether it is driving a car, riding a bike made of titanium or riding in a plane.  And, most importantly, when someone of your mindset, who has clearly not thought critically about the situation, and is acting on pure emotion, comes along and says that “wind power has arguably vastly less of an adverse impact on the environment compared to other energy sources”, I immediately question what you have said and, typically, it is with good reason……usually, the fact that you have employed very little reason and rationale in your argument. 

• Anonymous

  “with the tremendous devastation wrought by coal mining, oil spills, and nuclear disasters,”

  Really?  Where is all the “devastation”?  All I’ve heard of is the floods in the Mississippi and the tornadoes that have destroyed the lives of thousands of late.  Sure there are impacts.  But there are impacts from EVERY human activity, whether it is driving a car, riding a bike made of titanium or riding in a plane.  And, most importantly, when someone of your mindset, who has clearly not thought critically about the situation, and is acting on pure emotion, comes along and says that “wind power has arguably vastly less of an adverse impact on the environment compared to other energy sources”, I immediately question what you have said and, typically, it is with good reason……usually, the fact that you have employed very little reason and rationale in your argument. 

• Anonymous

  “with the tremendous devastation wrought by coal mining, oil spills, and nuclear disasters,”

  Really?  Where is all the “devastation”?  All I’ve heard of is the floods in the Mississippi and the tornadoes that have destroyed the lives of thousands of late.  Sure there are impacts.  But there are impacts from EVERY human activity, whether it is driving a car, riding a bike made of titanium or riding in a plane.  And, most importantly, when someone of your mindset, who has clearly not thought critically about the situation, and is acting on pure emotion, comes along and says that “wind power has arguably vastly less of an adverse impact on the environment compared to other energy sources”, I immediately question what you have said and, typically, it is with good reason……usually, the fact that you have employed very little reason and rationale in your argument. 

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JWO3KMJD6UZMCBWYUA5IHRCS5M Thomas M

  I say this is a better option.

  http://www.openhydro.com/home.html

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JWO3KMJD6UZMCBWYUA5IHRCS5M Thomas M

  I say this is a better option.

  http://www.openhydro.com/home.html

• Anonymous

  Hayek – wind helps drive the key processes of upwelling, nutrient mixing, sea surface temperatures,  and all sorts of other physical and biological processes that are the foundation of the Gulf of Maine ecosystem. 

• Anonymous

  I asked a question. If anyone could show the facts it would be helpful.
  Otherwise it is just BS, like I said.

• Anonymous

  Benny Ever hear of compressed natural gas?

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VMGD4EFRQIGDJVBLBZYK677BC4 Christopher

  I thought I had also mentioned DeepCWind or a consortium partner. You’re use of “we” implies such a thing. I too know the many folks involved in the project, some on a first name basis. I also know those involved in studying the migratory path of birds in that area. 

  However, I fail to see from any (all 3) of your posts where you actually challenged someone. With the acception of this last one, they were filled with very little constructive rebuttal (if any). Social scientist?  Please…

• Anonymous

  My use of “We” is intended to communicate a plurality.  As in members of the same community.  Often what we see is a matter of what we choose to see.  Observer bias or observer effect is the term.  Seeing my comments as legitimate or not is certainly your choice.

  “Please… ?” More sarcasm?  You might benefit from looking into the difference between critiquing an idea and devaluing it.  Sarcasm stipulates that you devalue an idea.  Do you intend to imply that sarcasm elevates the dialogue?  I don’t think it does.

  If nothing else, you do seem passionate.

• Anonymous

  I believe you might neglect to take into consideration the advances in technology that research brings. Numerous distinguished UM engineering professors say .07 cents per KWH is possible within 20 years as a result of research.  I’ll take the opinions of the UM Engineering Department over Pete’s for now.

• Anonymous

  If you believe nuclear power came about without monumental subsidization by the government (which still continues, by the way) you are sorely mistaken.  Also, the first mass produced metal ships were military ironclads that were designed and subsidized by the government.  Government subsidies also played a major role in the development of early aviation, as military planners began to see the value of the new machines.

• Anonymous

  Humans acting freely within the marketplace without fetters of any sort is not always the ideal situation.  Take the development and nurturing of American slavery, for example.

• Anonymous

  Yes.  Meanwhile, many of those same people who scoff are happy to coexist with all of the environmental problems associated with continued dependence on fossil fuels.

• Anonymous

  I guess I have to post the evidence right under your nose for you to open your eyes:

  http://cchronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/mtn1.jpg

  That used to be a living mountain ecosystem before the coal miners came along.  Other than the revelation of your lack of understanding of the hits that our environment has been taking in recent years, including the summer-long oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico last year, your statement contributes little to the debate.

• Anonymous

  That is what they call propane.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VMGD4EFRQIGDJVBLBZYK677BC4 Christopher

  When did I use sarcasm previous to that? Prior to that comment I had yet to be sarcastic. However you have continued with your trac record of skating around every direct question or comment. So who do you work for? Your awfully defensive. 

  I do devalue the fact your a social scientist because of the way you have handled your self. Why choose to call yourself a social scientist? So because your one, you can assume things, but not actually understand whats going to be done. Instead you just tell people its ok for you to assume because of the title you gave yourself.

  If you truly were a social scientist, you’d understand how people respond to passive aggressive and defensive comments and avoid doing so. Unless of course your goal is to bait people like me. Then you’ve succeeded. ;-)

• Anonymous

  Pointing out my social science background was a qualifier for my claim that I understood the ethics required in research.  That’s all.

  By “more sarcasm” I was referring to your sarcasm and the sarcasm I responded to where you refer to my comments as “Attacks.”  You self identify using sarcasm in your comments, affirming my assessment.

  We all make assumptions.  I have commented on intent and logic.

  So the question is still unanswered Chris.  Do you intend to imply that sarcasm elevates the dialogue?

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VMGD4EFRQIGDJVBLBZYK677BC4 Christopher

  No, I’m not implying sarcasm elevates the dialogue. I never said it did. Thats an implication you made and forcefully shoved into the conversation to further remove yourself personally from the discussion. I self identified one instance of sarcasm because that is all there is. Not multiple like you just implied. I’ve been quite direct. 
  So, yet again, the question is still unanswered Whatdoyaknow. Who do you work for? Your still awfully defensive. 

• Anonymous

  I study at UMaine, where am currently pursuing an Interdisciplinary PhD.  That’s all I will say.  I have no involvement with any of the units involved in DeepCwind activities.  I simply know the players.  Also, as a Maine resident this project is of interest to me.  I tend to think we need to diversify our energy technologies and I don’t tend to by the political rhetoric that gets thrown about.

  I am curious Chris, what was it that I said that baited you?  Is interacting with you at all at this point just more baiting?  I read you as projecting into my comments what you are actually doing yourself.  I’ve been direct, not passive, and critical of your comments, Enroncrook’s, and Mr. Huber’s.  I’ve said that each of you separately made comments that were unhelpful, sarcastic and devaluative rather then critical.  If making this comment now is deffensive in your mind I can’t change that.

  I believe that your insistence that I’ve been passive aggressive and attacking is interesting and a projection. Please quote me where you believe I have done that. 

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VMGD4EFRQIGDJVBLBZYK677BC4 Christopher

  The use of “we” is what got me going. The way it was presented threw a flag for me. Because the context it was used in, it felt as though someone directly related to the project was writing it. Which is why I’ve kept replying. I know the majority of those working on the project at UMaine and I do agree with you, they are all very nice people and not in it to hose us (we the non-affiliated, tax paying people).

  I dont think your above comment was defensive. You answered what I asked. I could go back and quote but I don’t really think it deserves the time. 

  I will quote this however.

  “ I tend to think we need to diversify our energy technologies and I don’t tend to by the political rhetoric that gets thrown about.”

  I’m with you on that. We do need to diversify. But I still feel wind is in-efficient and wont help the problem. (this isn’t against you) Throwing millions of dollars at something we know isn’t efficient isn’t going to make something great. And thats one of the problems I have with the wind farm they are trying to construct. You can only shine feces so much before someone sees its not a gem. 

• Anonymous

  Fair enough.  I suspect at the end of the day we agree more then we don’t.

  One parting thought.  The inefficiencies of alternate technologies might not be a permanent state.  Look at batteries.  If we broaden our scope of technology to include all technology we see a history of technologies advancing from prototype to ubiquity.  For example written language, policy, transportation, fishing, talk therapy, computers… on and on.  None of those technologies were as effective and efficient in their infancy.  And often the advancement of one has a profound effect on many others.

  Some technological development activities are massive undertakings.  Space travel for instance.  Deep sea drilling.  Massive amounts of treasure continually get thrown/invested in advancing those technologies.  Wind seems like common sense.  Wind on the ocean is a near constant.

  I do agree that its a pricy gamble.  If it never produces a worthwhile return on investment it will have proven to be a mistake.  Still, any great success has a story of progression full of mistakes.

  I am sorry if I came off as misleading about my intentions.  Please accept my apology.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VMGD4EFRQIGDJVBLBZYK677BC4 Christopher

  I have a feeling we also both agree on more then what we don’t. Apology accepted and I’m sorry being a pain.

  I definitely understand the advancement in technology regarding the other technology sectors. Batteries have come leaps and bounds in the last ten years. I’ve always had an interest in remote control vehicles (heli’s, cars etc) and the level of battery technology used for the model RC’s is leaps ahead of what we have on  a large scale and the broader consumer market. But it eventually gets there. I remember even just 3 years ago, not many people knew what a li-po battery was and now they are common place in many consumer electronics and EV’s. They’ve even seamed to fix the blowing up while charging issues they were having (heh, i hope). 

  Same with computers, tech doubles every 18 months. I think there can be some improvement with wind tech, but I dont think making power via a large spinning mill has much further to advance. At least by looking at their progression since they have been introduced. They haven’t really come that far aside from getting bigger. I just don’t think our economy can support this large of a gamble right now. If we had surplus sure but look at what we’ve gotten out of it versus what we’ve put in. I just don’t see it happening.