March 30, 2013
Turbines spark quick $60K city savings
By Gail McCarthyStaff Writer
The towering wind turbines rising above Blackburn Industrial Park have already translated into revenue with the city, clearing $60,000 in the first three months, according to Mayor Carolyn Kirk.
That was just one element of information shared Thursday night by Kirk and three experts at a wind energy panel discussion that prompted more than 300 Gloucester and Rockport residents to flock to the Sawyer Free Library for a panel discussion on wind energy.
Within three months worth of performance, Kirk said this year’s revenue projection for this calendar year will be $430,000. The only reason that is below the $450,000 estimate is that in the first few months of operation, there were glitches that needed to be addressed and required the turbines to be turned off. Once the operation is in full swing, Kirk said the city will be on track to meet its savings projections.
For the entire article click here to view it at the Gloucester Daily Times website
Good Morning Gloucester 
It would be nice if you could just post the whole story here at GMG. I click the link for GDT and the next thing I know I am sucked into reading the bizarre comments which must come from people living in their mom’s basement in Ohio. We would still be horse and buggy if we went along with these “just say no and be angry about everything” people.
I do applaud Damon for trying to straighten out the commenter who thought the wind generators were radioactive. Good grief.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t want people ripping my entire posts and putting them on their sites. As a courtesy I think posting the headline and linking back to the source is the way to go. I hear you about the GDT comment section. I understand that unmoderated shit show comment section will drive traffic to the paper website which is why tgey probably continue to allow it but its pretty gross and why even though its tedious to moderate our comment section at least its reasonable.
LikeLike
I understand on both counts. While I think having an angry comment section creates clicks (I can’t help looking when I am there, sort of like rubber necking at a bad car accident) it has to be detrimental to the paper in the long run. You find a car. It’s full of clowns. Who is responsible for this clown car? The owner. Even though it is the paper of record for Cape Ann the reputation of GDT comes from the lowest common denominator and that is the comments section. That’s pretty low.
Comments in a paper of record should be treated like letters to the editor. Attach a real name. Moderate and remove the trash.
Think of a potential visitor to Cape Ann. They click on Gloucester Daily Times. They read some comments. Do they think our streets are teeming with major loons? (Not the common loon which are off the Elks right now but will be heading north soon.) I’ve never met these people so I wonder if they all don’t live somewhere else under a rock.
LikeLike
Paul,
It’s not detrimental, apparently, because they get more page views the more people click to read the diatribes. My theory is that this actually drives the editorial content of the paper. They run stories that will purposely stuff the clown car in order to generate comments, and, ultimately clicks and page views for their advertisers. Nearly every online “news” source descends into this spiral. See: Huffington Post.
And as an aside, I object to your gratuitous slam on Ohio, my home state. 😉
LikeLike
The much touted 60k in “savings” is just the government moving taxpayers’ money around, and anyone who believes this makes sense economically (and environmentally) is probably on the government’s payroll already. Here’s an interesting article on subsidies from a CEO of a green energy company: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323501004578386501479255158.html?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Darticle
LikeLike
Sorry about picking Ohio SD, I’ll change that to Indiana, my home state next time. Yes, in the short term, it is not detrimental to the paper because they gin up clicks. But it to paint Cape Ann as a car full of clowns is detrimental to the community and in the long term, detrimental to the paper. Joey and authors here at GMG spend a few minutes during the day authorizing comments. We do not let the trash through although we do allow anonymous which works well with a filter. It would not be difficult for GDT to do the same or since it is the official paper of record, insist on real names. It might make the comments section worth reading instead of the circling the drain partisan cat fights they usually evolve to within the first or second comment.
LikeLike
So true about the long-term detriment. It has definitely altered the way I view the paper, and not in a good way, as just one anecdotal example. But Joey has made the tough, smart choice to not accept advertising and as a result, this blog has avoided the pressure to make money from clicks and page views. Which in turn has meant that he is able to build page views with integrity instead of through muckraking (I have never before used that old term until this very moment). But I have sympathy for the downhill slide of online sources that have to generate dollars through page views, as they are on the horns of a dilemma. I rarely comment on the GD Times, but I did switch to my real name over there for those times when I weigh in on something, to speak to your point about accountability (and I my best to cram in the turbine clown car!!!). A final thought: since you’re from Indiana, you’re allowed to bash Ohio, since they’re practically the same state. A courtesy extended from one former Midwesterner to another.
LikeLike