Slashdot Mirror


First US Offshore Wind Power Park In Delaware

Dekortage writes "Offshore wind power company Bluewater Wind has announced an agreement to build America's first offshore wind turbine park off the coast of Delaware. 'Each turbine [will sit on] a pole about 250 feet above the waterline... the units are to be constructed to withstand hurricane-force winds. From the shore, the park will be visible only on clear winter days, and the turbines will be nearly invisible during summer months when Rehoboth Beach fills with vacationers. Each blade on the three-blade rotor is to be 150 feet long.' The wind farm will power 50,000 homes in Delaware, using about half of its capacity."

363 comments

  1. The conspiracy continues... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The wind farm will power 50,000 homes in Delaware

    Lies. There are no homes in Delaware. Ask yourself, do you know anyone from Delaware?

    I thought not.

    Delaware is a plot between the banking industry and the DuPonts to get a few free Senators. Don't believe the lies.

    1. Re:The conspiracy continues... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Lies. There are no homes in Delaware. Ask yourself, do you know anyone from Delaware?
      Hey! I'm from Delaware, you insensitive clod!

      Delaware is a plot between the banking industry and the DuPonts to get a few free Senators. Don't believe the lies.
      And I'll be expecting my check now, Mr. DuPont!
    2. Re:The conspiracy continues... by FAEK · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I just read something very accurately related, see it here! A fine analysis.

    3. Re:The conspiracy continues... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! I live in Delaware! And I'm excited about this.

    4. Re:The conspiracy continues... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...or imagine being able to be magically whisked away to Delaware! Hi... I'm in Delaware.."

      --Wayne Campbell, "Wayne's World"

    5. Re:The conspiracy continues... by everphilski · · Score: 1

      Next section: Actuaries and their tattoos.

    6. Re:The conspiracy continues... by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's actually funny, because, well I'm Canadian, and having never to bothered looking for Delaware on a map, I was somewhat sure that it was an inland state. It made the headline quite confusing. I could probably locate the general area of most US states on a map, but Delaware is one (until now) state that I would have had no idea where it was located.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    7. Re:The conspiracy continues... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Delaware blows.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    8. Re:The conspiracy continues... by ericspinder · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ask yourself, do you know anyone from Delaware?

      "Delaware, what state is that in?" is an actual question I've heard when mentioning it.

      Delaware is a plot between the banking industry and the DuPonts to get a few free Senators.

      Well, it must have been a very early plot as it was the first state to sign the Constitution, and DuPont must have managed it from France, anticipating starting a gunpowder company a dozen years later.

      --
      The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
    9. Re:The conspiracy continues... by fprintf · · Score: 1

      It sucks too!

      --
      This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
    10. Re:The conspiracy continues... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is this country of Delaware of which you speak and do I need a passport or visa to visit there for my vacation?

    11. Re:The conspiracy continues... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ack. I live in Delaware!

      Actually, we have nearly a million residents, being perfectly situated between Baltimore and Philly, and within driving distance of New York and D.C.

    12. Re:The conspiracy continues... by residieu · · Score: 1

      Umm... yeah, I do. And I lived in Delaware for 4 years during college. But you've got the conspiracy all wrong. They don't want you to notice Delaware, or what's going on there.

    13. Re:The conspiracy continues... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      being perfectly situated between Baltimore and Philly

      There's nothing perfect about being situated between Baltimore and Philly.

      In fact, I can't think of anything worse.

    14. Re:The conspiracy continues... by Joebert · · Score: 5, Funny

      Delaware blows

      I hope so.
      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    15. Re:The conspiracy continues... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      I live here too - and you know it's sad when the only thing we have going for us is that we're "conveniently located near major cities"...

    16. Re:The conspiracy continues... by residieu · · Score: 1

      You forget. No sales tax.

    17. Re:The conspiracy continues... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny thing. I saw "Delaware" and "Park" in the same sentence and I immediately thought "horse racing"

    18. Re:The conspiracy continues... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does Delaware spit or swallow?

    19. Re:The conspiracy continues... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you like Delaware so much, why don't you marry it?

      P.S.: I hope she sucks too.

    20. Re:The conspiracy continues... by eln · · Score: 4, Funny

      Haha, that just goes to show that Americans get an unfairly bad rap for being bad at geography. It turns out you Canadians know far less about American geography than we know about everyone else's geography!

      Man, what a bunch of losers. I'm so going to mock you losers when I travel up to the oceanfront property I just bought in Alberta. I'm pretty sure my property is close to your national capital in Toronto too, so maybe I'll just have to go complain to your President about all the jokes. You'll be sorry you ever made fun of us!

    21. Re:The conspiracy continues... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      delaware was the first state in the united states and best of all has no sales tax.

      we also rule cause we charge you 4 bucks to drive like 20 miles on our stretch of 95.

      ha ha.

    22. Re:The conspiracy continues... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's worse than that.

      I had a bartender in Olean, New York confiscate my driver's license because, and I quote, "This is a fake, there is no such state as Delaware".

      I went over the bar to get it back, the cops got called, it was getting pretty ugly until the cop got there (the cop told the bartender he was a retard).

    23. Re:The conspiracy continues... by omnipresentbob · · Score: 1

      Delaware is a plot between the banking industry and the DuPonts to get a few free Senators.

      Well, it must have been a very early plot as it was the first state to sign the Constitution

      I've learned from lots of movies and books that history is written by the winners.

      What does this tell you about DuPont?
    24. Re:The conspiracy continues... by TimToady · · Score: 3, Funny

      Everyone knows the main purpose of Delaware is actually to mark the credit card junk mail you can throw out without looking at it.

    25. Re:The conspiracy continues... by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 2, Funny

      That can be a bad thing. Your family orders stuff and has it shipped to your address to avoid sales tax. Then you got to bring/ship it to them.

      Now try explaining to your girlfriend that the Victoria's Secret order is not for her and she shouldn't be mad/jealous. Then calling your parents to tell them that they are getting the therapy bill for thinking of your mother wearing said Victoria's Secret outfit.

    26. Re:The conspiracy continues... by khardiss · · Score: 3, Informative

      Fact is, anything outside of Texas is a liberal lie. We know the world really consists of just Texas and water.

    27. Re:The conspiracy continues... by mapsjanhere · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, try being from Albuquerque, New Mexico.
      About one in ten US companies tries to connect you to their international shipping department when you call in an order...

      --
      I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
    28. Re:The conspiracy continues... by aunticrist · · Score: 1

      *snerk* glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. ;) However, to be back OT, I think these kinds of things are great. I mean yes, some aquatic birds might meet a blade or two, but really we are going to be better off in the long run with these alternative means of power generation.

    29. Re:The conspiracy continues... by Joebert · · Score: 1

      It actually is kinda funny, because, well, I'm a Floridiot & I was wondering which one of the Great Lakes they were going to construct these turbines on.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    30. Re:The conspiracy continues... by The+Spoonman · · Score: 1

      Similarly with Utah. Have you ever met anyone from Utah?

      Props only to those who get it. Anecdotal meetings must be followed up with verifiable proof.

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    31. Re:The conspiracy continues... by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

      Well... To be fair, when I was in school, DE's licenses were laminated, and easily reproducible via laser printer (that newfangled contraption circa 1990).. Any state with laminated and easily-printable licenses were suspect, but then again, most of the Buffalo bars didn't _really_ give a tinker's cuss...

      Still, being in the top 10 on the Tax Foundation's list and still being on the east coast is not too bad...

    32. Re:The conspiracy continues... by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

      Oh that's ok, I'm sure the number of Americans who can find Canada on a map is only barely surpassed by the number of Americans who actually care that Canada exists.. Or that anyplace else on the planet exists, for that matter.

      Must be infuriatin'! ;)

    33. Re:The conspiracy continues... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are an idiot.

    34. Re:The conspiracy continues... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Well, in my defense, I think the common analogy given about Americans and bad geography is that they can't find their home state on a map. I can find my home province on a map, and every other province and territory. I won't pretend that I'm a guru at geography, and that I could point out any country on a map, but not knowing where you live in the world, well, that's just stupid.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    35. Re:The conspiracy continues... by bryce4president · · Score: 1

      The bartender is the retard? How did you end up so far out of the way as to be in Olean NY? You must have been headed to the casino at Salemanca and took a wrong turn?

    36. Re:The conspiracy continues... by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      Whoa, slow down. There's a new Mexico?

      About one in 10 US shipping department clerks won't get this reference.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    37. Re:The conspiracy continues... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We moved back to Delaware from Oklahoma almost 2 years ago... I have to say that living in DE in not bad at all. You have all the big cities nearby, yet you don't leave in a big city so trafic is good. Furthermore, there is no sales tax, property tax is good and state income tax is reasonable (lower than neighboring states like NJ, MD, PA and also Oklahoma)...

    38. Re:The conspiracy continues... by Spatial · · Score: 1

      Maybe they just thought you took a wrong turn.

    39. Re:The conspiracy continues... by Pentalon · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, whenever the media lists a group of Eastern states with some kind of category, like "Mid-Atlantic states", "Northeast states", or "Southeast states", Delaware is *always* left off the list.

      Delaware is bordered by PA on the north, NJ/ocean on the east, and MD on the west and south. I've seen the category "Mid-Atlantic" repeatedly used with the following configurations (working from north of DE to south of DE):

      + NY, PA, NJ
      + PA, NJ, MD
      + NJ, MD, VA
      + etc -- no DE.

      Same goes for "Northeast States". They always stop at PA and NJ. "Southeast States", if they make it up to the mid-atlantic region at all, stop at MD. So, according to various media, we're not in the north, south, or middle region. Consequently, the public rarely gets any off-hand mental reinforcement of our existence or location.

      I'm from DE, and it's kinda fun being off the radar. We're not even recognized regularly for being the smallest state -- we're just the second smallest, so RI gets the recognition there.

  2. Wind Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, so the industrial park and the office park now have a new companion.

    Also, I met a girl and I haven't screwed it up yet!!!

  3. Here it comes... by Reecie · · Score: 1

    All scenery activists are go to commence with the taking of umbrage.

    1. Re:Here it comes... by skiingyac · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The wind farm will be several miles out from the beach, so on a non-hazy day you will be able to make out a few toothpicks sticking up out of the water. Big deal, there are more ugly planes (with annoying banners!) and boats that go by all the time that look much bigger.

    2. Re:Here it comes... by crmarvin42 · · Score: 1

      You have a very valid point, but the initial comment is valid as well. The main reason we don't have wind farms on the Cape and around Martha's Vineyard in MA is due to so many rich individuals not wanting the view from their incredibly over-priced beach-front property to be anything less than spectacular

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    3. Re:Here it comes... by SQLGuru · · Score: 2, Funny

      Plus, they'd have to have their captain steer around them while out on their yachts.

      Layne

    4. Re:Here it comes... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wonder if people bitched so much back when the Coast Guard was going around putting up lighthouses everywhere.

      Now, some of the most expensive property on Cape Ann, MA is the coastline where the lighthouses are visible. They're considered picturesque; hell, more than that, they're 'romantic seacoast' to the point of being cliched.

      We just need the political will to ram the wind-power projects through, and in a few years they'll just be another part of the landscape. A few generations, and people will be putting together comprehensive coffee-table books on "Wind Turbines of the Northeast U.S."

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    5. Re:Here it comes... by ILuvRamen · · Score: 1

      but those douchebags usually own Hummers and 12 cyllinder Jaguars and stuff so paying more for gas even pisses them off cuz they're not rich because they throw away money carelessly despite the price of something. Plus, flying in rare foods and other products from other countries is waaaaay more expensive now so they should all get over it pretty quickly

      --
      Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    6. Re:Here it comes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but those douchebags usually own Hummers and 12 cyllinder Jaguars and stuff so paying more for gas even pisses them off cuz they're not rich because they throw away money carelessly despite the price of something.
      Only the most skilled linguistic students should attempt to diagram this sentence.
  4. Don't forget... by clonan · · Score: 4, Funny

    According to TFA there are also tourists.

    But that only begs the question...who would go to Delaware for a vacation?

    1. Re:Don't forget... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dogfish Head beer is made in Rehobeth DE.

      That alone makes Delaware worth a vist, if only to check out the brewery and then drink oneself into oblivion... to avoid having to face the reality that you did, indeed, got to Delaware for a vacation.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:Don't forget... by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      But that only begs the question...who would go to Delaware for a vacation?

      I was stationed at Dover AFB from 1971-1973. If it's anything like it was then, I'd say absolutely NOBODY. Never before or since I was there have I ever been so bored, and I owned a motorcycle and a new 1869 Mustang.

      The only good thing about that state was the fact that you only had to drive twenty minutes in any direction and you were in a different state.

      The summary mentions Rehobeth, I went there. It's not in Delaware, Rehobeth is in Maryland. None of the beaches in Delaware had sand. Deleware wes, as they say, "teh suck".

      At least there's something good there now.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    3. Re:Don't forget... by orielbean · · Score: 1

      90 Minute IPA for the win!!!

    4. Re:Don't forget... by LMacG · · Score: 5, Funny

      > I was stationed at Dover AFB from 1971-1973 [...] I owned a motorcycle and a new 1869 Mustang.

      After 102+ years, I don't think your horse was even alive, let alone "new".

      --
      Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
    5. Re:Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong that's in Delaware

    6. Re:Don't forget... by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      120 Minutes IPA for the double win!

      It's not so easy to get out here in AZ, pretty much gotta go to Papago where they also serve a beer appropriately called hops shortage which is the most hoppy IPA I've ever had!

      nom nom nom nom

    7. Re:Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well behind Provincetown, RI, know that Rehoboth Beach Delaware is the biggest gay beach destination the east coast.

    8. Re:Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Never before or since I was there have I ever been so bored, and I owned a motorcycle and a new 1869 Mustang.

      That's your problem ... the Mustangs were a lot more fun once they started making them out of metal and putting gasoline engines into them!

    9. Re:Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The wind farm will power 50,000 homes in Delaware 50,000 homes? So, that's what, one Al Gore mansion?

      Just remember: you must conserve and use less power than someone from the 1700's, but the Al Gore doesn't have to.

      Also, make sure to keep a track of how much you breath so you can pay your carbon tax, you planet warming CO2 exhaler...

    10. Re:Don't forget... by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      But that only begs the question...who would go to Delaware for a vacation? People interested in screen doors?
      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    11. Re:Don't forget... by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      Dogfish Head beer is made in Rehobeth DE. Midas Touch Ale is great. Dogfish Head is maybe the only great brewer on the East Coast.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    12. Re:Don't forget... by Cap'n.Brownbeard · · Score: 1

      Uh... RehobOth IS in DE, and doesn't suck. In fact, Lewes (that's pronounced Louis) and Rehoboth are the only two good towns in the state. Oh, and I guess Milton, since the DFH brewery is there.

    13. Re:Don't forget... by moosesocks · · Score: 5, Funny

      But that only begs the question...who would go to Delaware for a vacation?

      If you're from New Jersey, just about anyplace else seems like paradise.....
      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    14. Re:Don't forget... by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Hmm...I stand corrected.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    15. Re:Don't forget... by Xawen · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The summary mentions Rehobeth, I went there. It's not in Delaware, Rehobeth is in Maryland. None of the beaches in Delaware had sand.

      At least there's something good there now.

      You're an idiot. Rehoboth, Lewes, Bethany, Dewey and Cape Henlopen are all Delaware beaches with plenty of sand (and they had a lot more back in the 70s). They're also less than 30 minutes from the Air Force base. You have to go all the way out of the bottom of the state to get to Ocean City, the north most beach in Maryland.

      If you're that geographically inept, I hope you weren't driving that bike around too much. BTW, how was that 1869 Mustang? I hear the wood fired Fords were the best...

      I do agree that aside from the beaches, there's not a hell of a lot to do in DE though...

    16. Re:Don't forget... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Heh... I remember the first time I had the 120-minute and was a bit annoyed it was like $12 for a 4-pack.

      Then I drank all four.

      It was only the next morning when I learned the ABV in the 120-minute is something ridiculous like 12-14%. It's a shame it's so string when it's so tasty... I would like to be able to drink a few of them[1] without getting kerplatzed.

      [1] It might have been different in college... but it's amazing what having kids and real responsibilities does to alcohol tolerance.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    17. Re:Don't forget... by Temtongkek · · Score: 5, Funny

      You all suck. I'm from Delaware and I'm the coolest guy you know.

      I:

      -have Real Genius AND Aliens memorized word for word
      -speak 23 languages, 3 of which are actually used on this planet
      -actually have a job
      -changed my underwear recently
      -am voting for the Cylons this upcoming election
      and
      -fought Chuck Norris ....and am alive to type about it.

      Beat that.

    18. Re:Don't forget... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Ouch! That hurts. Maybe you've never tried Allagash or Victory.

      There is an awful lot of dreck on the east coast, but you might be pleasantly surprised by some of the consistently good breweries.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    19. Re:Don't forget... by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      Not a fan of the 120 - I think it's trying a little too hard. Plus I've never really been a fan of beers with an ABV above 9%. The 90 is just right.

    20. Re:Don't forget... by RogueSeven · · Score: 1

      It's actually around 20% abv. Way to go on downing four, champ! That's the rough equivalent of sixteen light beers. Also, I would love to get it for 3$ a bottle. The single bottle on my desk that I've been aging for almost a year now still taunts me with its $8.99 price tag! And that was purchased IN Delaware, where I live. Perhaps you were drinking the 90? Certainly a tenable theory considering you had four in a row!

    21. Re:Don't forget... by bedmison · · Score: 1
      But that only begs the question...who would go to Delaware for a vacation?

      Mr. Tony that's who!
      Of course, he got a speeding ticket on his way there and he was kvetching about the Eastern European ice cream parlor employees, but otherwise, he seems to like it.

    22. Re:Don't forget... by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      or magic hat, or flying fish

    23. Re:Don't forget... by Squalish · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Re: The DelMarVa coast - It's warm enough, breezy enough, and wet enough to approximate a beach in summer. With cheap oil, it's a cheap automotive vacation. It attracts everyone east of Appalachia, south of Pennsylvania, and north of Richmond. Somehow it never became an icon - but it is the most popular vacation destination for several million people.

      The only inhabitants that aren't supported by the corporate technicalities or the vacation industry are farmers.

      --
      People in Soviet Russia, however, appear to be afflicted with amusing juxtapositions of the aforementioned situation
    24. Re:Don't forget... by omnipresentbob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That he claims to have fought against Chuck Norris and lived to type about is proof that he either a) doesn't exist or b) is lying. About everything.

    25. Re:Don't forget... by fropenn · · Score: 1

      My family has actually spent many weeks vacationing in the beach resorts of Delaware. The beaches are very clean and have a great reputation for being family-friendly (there's also a gay beach if you are interested).

      The Delaware beaches draw lots of families from the Baltimore-Washington DC area, as it is within an afternoon's drive (depending on traffic).

      But don't take your vacation there. One of the great things is how uncrowded it is in comparison to other beaches in the U.S.

    26. Re:Don't forget... by cpankonien · · Score: 1

      hopefully not you, asshole...

    27. Re:Don't forget... by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      The 120 is a treat for me, the 90 is also a treat as it's mostly hard for me to get. The 60 is the beer of choice at the places that serve it. Of course I just found a place that serves Arrogant Bastard which is probably the West Coast's closest answer to it.

    28. Re:Don't forget... by gnick · · Score: 1

      Mustangs were a lot more fun once they started making them out of metal and putting gasoline engines into them! You've obviously never heard of the Mustang Ranch...
      Great fun to ride! And I think that would be diminished if they were gassy...
      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    29. Re:Don't forget... by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      The ability to drink comes from staying in practice, you fall out and its hard all over again.

      My job has be stressing and working a lot more for half the year where I don't have time to drink a lot so I lose my tolerance, then there is a two week break before I spend my birthday in Palm Beach where its all downhill from there until four months later when the whole thing starts over.

      I didn't like how expensive it was until I realized that it was indeed worth every penny. I really want one right now but its rather hard to get round these parts. Once in a blue moon this place near my house has them.

    30. Re:Don't forget... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      I'm not particularly fond of either of those two...

      Magic Hat seems to be mostly gimmick to me. While they are consistently decent, I've yet to consider any of their beers to be excellent... they produce respectable examples of several different types of beer, but the best I've ever graded them on a particular variety is 8/10. Might be personal taste however...

      It's been several years since I've had Flying Fish, but my recollection is that they missed the mark by a bit. IIRC, they were overly sweet to be a nice hoppy ale, and overly yeasty to be a nice big beer. I felt like they weren't sure what they were trying to brew -- and while I enjoyed them, I though the lack of definition kept me from really enjoying them.

      Then again, part of it may be my criteria. If something is a blonde ale, it needs to be compared to the prototype blonde ale. This is where Magic Hat falls short; everything needs to be "slightly different" than the prototype -- to me, this means that the beer doesn't fit the mold and is a lesser beer. YMMV.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    31. Re:Don't forget... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It was the 120, about three years ago. Currently I can find the 120 for $16 a 4-pack in western NJ (at one store; the other stores sell it single-bottle only for $6-10 depending on the store).

      I'd also note that aging it too long may not be a good thing... not sure what the temp conditions are, but that definitely shouldn't be on your desk -- for beer's sake, man, get it out of the light! I'm not big on aging IPAs too long, I think the caramels and the "burnt tire" flavor contradict the hoppiness... even though I love well-aged red and brown ales.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    32. Re:Don't forget... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      For me, a big part of it is that I no longer have the freedom to fritter away hung over mornings... nor do I have the desire to be as drunk. It's just not as appealing when stark responsibility is waiting for me in the morning.

      The physical tolerance is another issue... but I figure the weight I've gained since college would offset that :)

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    33. Re:Don't forget... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you're from New Jersey, just about anyplace else seems like paradise.....
      Have you met people from NJ?

      If you're from North Jersey|Down the Shore|The Pine Barrens you won't think anyplace else is paradise... you'll think it's a different planet.

      New Jersey is, in fact, a gateway to a different planet. This is why we get the weirdos. Show me a photo of a bunch of teenage NJ guidos, look me in the eye, and tell me with a straight face that they are not aliens. It can't be done.

      Don't you think there's a reason the aliens landed in NJ in "War of the Worlds"?

      The only other possibility is that due to all the toxic waste, NJ is now largely populated by mutants. However, the same effect is not observed in Silicon Valley, so I don't think we can ascribe it to toxic waste.

      /I'm a NJ native and have been documenting the culture and physiology of the resident aliens in NJ for two decades. Trust me on this one.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    34. Re:Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You all suck. I'm from Delaware and I'm the coolest guy you know.

      I:

      -have Real Genius AND Aliens memorized word for word
      -speak 23 languages, 3 of which are actually used on this planet
      -actually have a job
      -changed my underwear recently
      -am voting for the Cylons this upcoming election
      and
      -fought Chuck Norris ....and am alive to type about it.

      Beat that.

      Well at least we confirmed there are basements in Delaware.
    35. Re:Don't forget... by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      I don't get hungover unless I really overdo it which is exceedingly rare. If when I don't have responsibility to wake up to I don't want to waste a perfectly good day away.

      Dehydration is always the enemy though. He who's masters hydration will win the day.

    36. Re:Don't forget... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "But that only begs the question...who would go to Delaware for a vacation?"

      Someone (on a budget...) fleeing the horror that is New Jersey.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    37. Re:Don't forget... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "It might have been different in college... but it's amazing what having kids and real responsibilities does to alcohol tolerance."

      Nah...it isn't that...it is just age.

      I have no kids, etc....yet I still think I blew a liver about a year ago...

      :-)

      OH man....I finally discovered what a hangover truly is....I never had one at all till early 30's....and it started getting a bit worse till now. OUCH!!

      Just age I guess...body can't process it all as well as it used to.

      :(

      Damn..and drinking was such a fun hobby!

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    38. Re:Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're absolutely right.... ...I don't exist. :)

    39. Re:Don't forget... by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think it's something about the diners.

      (and all of the sudden, I'm having a craving for Taylor Ham and cheese on a bagel......)

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    40. Re:Don't forget... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Well at least we confirmed there are basements in Delaware."

      Apparently it is a good place to incorporate...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    41. Re:Don't forget... by kickassweb · · Score: 1

      NJ DINER CHEESECAKE. With those Cherries marinated in Red Food Dye #7. It was my major preggers crave.

      --
      I'd love to change the world but I can't find the source code.
    42. Re:Don't forget... by fishtop · · Score: 1

      Its a big gay summer resort, and there are lots of Federal bureaucrats there all summer.

    43. Re:Don't forget... by ShadowBlasko · · Score: 1

      Cool. You were stationed with my Dad.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order- Ed Howdershelt Via Tass
    44. Re:Don't forget... by billcopc · · Score: 1

      Yup... one cup of water after each tall draft (or two bottles) = no hangover (for me, at least). It's a bit trickier when spirits are involved, but it's the same idea.

      Of course, I no longer work/live/sleep in bars, so I'm not quite as affected by the hangover of doom, but it's still nice to dodge them whenever you can. I'd much rather have a slightly buzzy morning, than to feel like I'm in a bad remake of Fear and Loathing.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    45. Re:Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's RehobOth not RehobEth. I used to live across the Dogfish Brewery in Lewes (Pronounced "Louis"). Good stuff.

    46. Re:Don't forget... by Sethus · · Score: 1

      Dude, I just tried that the other day. They make a killer dark beer. I'm moving to Delaware!

      --
      Posting with out proof reading since 2001.
    47. Re:Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      www.njguido.com

      www.getoffourisland.com

    48. Re:Don't forget... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      I'm an alien tripod, you insensitive clod!

    49. Re:Don't forget... by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      >> am voting for the Cylons this upcoming election

      Not many people in this day and age who will admit to voting Republican.

      Put photos of John McCain and Col. Tigh side by side. You'll see what I mean.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    50. Re:Don't forget... by Epi-man · · Score: 1

      Dogfish Head beer is made in Rehobeth DE.

      That alone makes Delaware worth a vist, if only to check out the brewery and then drink oneself into oblivion... to avoid having to face the reality that you did, indeed, got to Delaware for a vacation.

      My family took a family vacation to visit other family in Delaware last summer (near Rehobeth...of course, in DE, anything is nearby) and it was an absolutely fantastic time. Very family friendly, and my kids were thrilled to see the schools of dolphins/porpoises jumping less than a mile out (at least it seemed they were that close, but not living near the ocean, my sense of distance may be WAY off) from where we were swimming. I HIGHLY recommend a summer vacation to the DE beaches.

    51. Re:Don't forget... by Temtongkek · · Score: 1

      No, no. I meant the robots. Screw the human cylons. :: waits for jokes pertaining to the act of coitus with either number 6 or 8. The cylon models. Not the numbers themselves... though... that'd be quite.. umm. interesting... ::

    52. Re:Don't forget... by Spatial · · Score: 1

      /I'm a NJ native and have been documenting the culture and physiology of the resident aliens in NJ for two decades. Trust me on this one. ...Prefect? Ford Prefect?
  5. Ocean view by Oxy+the+moron · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My family usually makes a trip every year to Bethany Beach, which is just a bit south of Rehoboth Beach. While I understand that it's better for most tourists if the turbines are not visible, it'd be cool if we could make it into a real-life science "field trip" for the kids sometime in the future.

    Are there any plans for something like a small boat trip to see them up close? Maybe they could build a museum?

    --

    Proudly supporting the Libertarian Party.

    1. Re:Ocean view by stormguard2099 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you ever have the chance, go to Tarifa, Spain. It's one of the most beautiful places I have ever been.

      The beaches are nice and wide with fine sand. It makes for a perfect place to ride wind powered boards and of course kite surfing in the ocean.

      All of this wind also makes for the perfect location for windfarms. The area around Tarifa is spotted with the turbines. Honestly that was my favorite view was to stand on the beach and watch all of turbines happily spinning up on the mountains producing nice clean energy.

      If I had faster internet I'd find you some links for pics.

      --
      http://greenobyl.com/ please.... think of the children!!
    2. Re:Ocean view by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      I imagine, given they are infrastructure and unless current trends with Homeland Security reverse, getting close enough to see them as more than dots on the horizon will result in another type of field trip in a Coast Guard vessel. Especially in a small boat.

    3. Re:Ocean view by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      Why is it bad for the tourists? I don't think that I've ever seen a wind turbine with my own eyes. What's wrong with it?

      Also, the web site and the submission didn't mention why it would only be visible in winter. I thought that it would be visible in summer and not the winter, if anything. Does anybody understand why?

    4. Re:Ocean view by GeckoX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's just stupid. They're _windmills_. It would be a massive waste of money to guard them in particular over and above normal coast guard duties. The effort required to inflict any damage of real consequence is massively prohibitive. And trust me, industrial espionage? Not a problem here.

      Yep, they're novel to see if you haven't before. But they're truly just really big steel towers with 3 giant blades at the top. They're building lots in Ontario these days, and there is nothing keeping anybody from getting reasonably close to them whatsoever...there's no point.

      I do find it weird that they'd be building these out in the Ocean so that people can't see them. They're not unsightly, and the increased initial cost and access costs for maintenance seems counter productive. Ah well. It's a step in the right direction anyways.

      --
      No Comment.
    5. Re:Ocean view by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Does anybody understand why? I don't know this for sure, but I did grow up on the ocean, and it is true that you can see further in the winter. I think it must have to do with evaporation off of the ocean - or possibly the mist that is created by the interaction between the warm humid air and the relatively cool water.

      Besides California, the only place I've seen turbines is in Atlantic City, NJ... they power a sewage treatment plant right off to the left as you drive into town. They are just about the only interesting thing to see on the drive in, so I don't know why people object to them. Out on the water, they would look a lot nicer than container ships, and they sure as hell beat Cigarette boats with no mufflers. For that matter, why don't people get all wound up about airplanes spoiling the natural view of the sky?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    6. Re:Ocean view by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      Because we all know bottles of breast milk can be used to bring down airplanes and terrorists will always refuse to provide ID rather than coming up with fake ones.

      Security theaters aren't about security they are about looking secure.

    7. Re:Ocean view by danzona · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why is it bad for the tourists? I don't think that I've ever seen a wind turbine with my own eyes. What's wrong with it?

      A lot of wealthy and powerful people have bought homes in places that look out over the ocean, and they want to see the ocean, not a bunch of wind turbines or oil rigs or boat people. These people will say anything do stop the project, so if the area gets money from tourism, they say that tourists will stop coming. I agree with you, I don't see anything wrong with it. While I like looking at mountains or the ocean, if I was going to buy a home because of the view it would be a view of the Chicago skyline.

      Also, the web site and the submission didn't mention why it would only be visible in winter. I thought that it would be visible in summer and not the winter, if anything. Does anybody understand why?

      In the summer the humidity is higher and the air holds more water which reduces visibility. In the winter there is less humidity and visibility improves. It isn't stated in the summary, but it is implied that they are referring to clear, sunny days (which probably occur less often during the winter, but do still occur occasionally).

    8. Re:Ocean view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I do find it weird that they'd be building these out in the Ocean so that people can't see them.

      There's too many idiots who complain about windmills. We have a massive installation near my place(Palm Springs) and they generate good clean power and they look kinda cool IMO, but they've stopped adding more because people are complaining that they're ugly. I honestly don't see it. I much prefer that than brown skies from a coal plant or the potential for a meltdown from a nuclear plant.

      We can put windmills in my backyard any day of the week. They are relaxing and transfixing to watch, better for the environment, and strengthen America's energy infrastructure. I just don't get why people are against them, other than the enviro whackjobs who complain about the birds who might die in the blades. Things must die for other things to live, and coal and oil have the potential to kill much more than the blades of windmills.

    9. Re:Ocean view by initdeep · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      as opposed to the whackjobs who think that every nuclear plant is going to meltdown.......

      oh and ask Mr Ted Kennedy about windfarms......

    10. Re:Ocean view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why would I want to ask Ted Kennedy about anything? I live in california, I'm not a democrat, so what exactly is your point and how is this a reply to anything I said?

        I didn't say every nuclear plant is going to melt down either, not even close, but you're obviously responding from your own biases and not to what I said. My point was clear, to anyone who is capable of analyzing what I said, that I much prefer any eyesore aspect of windmills over the *POTENTIAL* for a meltdown form a nuclear plant. Maybe you're one of those True Believers(TM) in nuclear power who think that any plant we build today will magically be meltdown proof, but I prefer realism over delusions, so I can't share that view.

    11. Re:Ocean view by corgan517 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IANAWTE (...wind turbine engineer...), however, my guess is the location is less about view and more about desirable wind characteristics... since when did any large company decided to spend significantly more money on a different location for their facility just so that people wouldn't have to see it?

    12. Re:Ocean view by Hubbell · · Score: 0

      Not a single person was harmed in the Three Mile Incident, and in modern reactors a full meltdown is physically impossible as far as I know. The physics involved cause the reactor core to stop, well, reacting if a meltdown scenario (in an older plant) begins to occur.

    13. Re:Ocean view by SQLGuru · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd love for them to be close to my house because it would mean that the jets would have to fly further away. Windmill = quiet power. Jet = noise pollution.

      Layne

    14. Re:Ocean view by Romwell · · Score: 2, Funny
      I have been to Kansas recently, and they have massive wind farms along the I-70. Check out at http://www.kansasenergy.org/wind_projects.htm, I can't find pics now, but they look really cool. And yeah, intercepting all replies:
      • Kansas is flat
      • There is nothing in Kansas
      • There is nothing in Kansas, except cows, hay and polls
      • Delaware doesn't look that bad after all ! (although I've never been there =)
      • Kansas is populated, and yes, by people
      • My girlfriend lives there for now, and, last but not least..
      • NO, HER NAME IS NOT DOROTHY, you dimwit !!!
    15. Re:Ocean view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in modern reactors a full meltdown is physically impossible as far as I know

      As far as you know? What exactly do you know about them to make you say this? Was this just something you read somewhere? I'm not swayed by random comments like this that aren't backed up with substance. Let me stress, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that without evidence, this is meaningless.

      Anyway, before that nitwit turned my comments in praise of wind power into some lameass irrelevant partisan bullshit about nuclear power and ted kennedy, my point was I prefer wind energy. Even if you could make something meltdown proof, there's still the waste issue. The only thing more retarded than the arguments of the alarmist anti-nuke nuts and the fringe enviro whackjobs, are the anti-windmill people. But hey, it worked for Don Quixote.

    16. Re:Ocean view by Taerinshar · · Score: 1

      Good point and while it wouldn't be impossibly hard to sabotage them if you really felt like it, there are so many towers these days it would require a really major effort to make any kind of dent in the local power production.

      Also, regarding the reason why off-shore towers are more popular. Yes they are much more expensive, and yes the salt water is a very corrosive environment to work on but there are benefits. First of all, the wind speeds are higher in general (you get gusts coming off the warmer land during the day and vice versa at night) and they're more consistent. Land based windmills have to deal with vegetation and hill that can slow the wind down and if you don't put the turbines far enough apart they actually interfere with one another. Another nice thing about the ocean is that there's a *lot* of space out there you can take advantage of without worrying about the placements of farmhouses and roads.

    17. Re:Ocean view by cliffski · · Score: 1

      the twin towers were designed to withstand being hit by a jumbo jet.
      as it goes, they didn't withstand it. I guess its hard to do real world tests of those situations.
      bummer eh?

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    18. Re:Ocean view by The+employee+can+cho · · Score: 1

      I am a big fan of our wind turbines. Maui's property is among the most expensive in the nation. People continue to flock here for their vacations. I don't think the wind farm would deter anyone from visiting. However, there are few residential properties that are have a view of the wind farm, even though it is on the ridgeline of the west Maui mountains. http://farm1.static.flickr.com/211/511912301_9d756feca2.jpg

    19. Re:Ocean view by treat · · Score: 1

      I'd love for them to be close to my house because it would mean that the jets would have to fly further away. Windmill = quiet power. Jet = noise pollution.

      Layne

      I guess you've never seen a windmill before. They are quite loud.

      Having them out of sight hopefully also means that they are far enough away that you can't hear them.

    20. Re:Ocean view by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      Probably since the Cape Cod and Martha's Vinyard wind-power projects kept running into trouble because of very politically well-connected people opposing them at every turn, because for whatever reasons they didn't want them in sight.

      The Kennedys -- who own a massive family compound on the Cape -- were a big part of getting the Cape Cod project scuttled, or at least set back; Ted Kennedy apparently even connived with Ted Stevens (everybody's favorite!) in order to lessen its chances of getting a funding bill through the Senate. cite That sort of underhanded, backroom dealing is clear proof that his reasons for opposing it are personal and not something that would hold up to actual debate or scrutiny.

      (Something to keep in mind if you ever hear that slimebag talking about alternative energy.)

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    21. Re:Ocean view by MorePower · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I guess you've never seen a windmill before. They are quite loud.

      People keep saying this, but I have to ask: how close do you have to stand to hear a modern wind turbine? Because I've stood at the fence of the Palm Springs wind farm (because my girlfriend insisted on taking photos of "the pretty windmills", so much for them being an eyesore too) and I couldn't hear a thing. And I wouldn't expect to hear much either, since they rotate about once every 3 seconds and have 3 blades. I don't hear very well in th 1Hz range.

    22. Re:Ocean view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're _windmills_.It would be a massive waste of money to guard them Sure, you say that now. Lets see you're attitude when we get the first jackass with a lance trying to take them on...
    23. Re:Ocean view by socsoc · · Score: 1

      I always enjoyed seeing those wind farms. It was a refreshing change of scenery after driving through beautiful Banning/Beaumont on the interstate.

    24. Re:Ocean view by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      The Soylent Corporation has spent a lot of money locating its factories and offices where nobody would find it.

      What, you thought it wasn't real? No, that's just ROI.

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    25. Re:Ocean view by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      That's not exactly true. They will automatically remove the heat from the reactor in the event of a power failure for a period of time (three days) but after that severe damage can still occur as heat builds up in the reactor. And of course, the passive cooling system is still subject to parts failure.

      This kind of fail-safe design is possible due to the fact that reactor output falls as temperature increases. If the primary cooling system fails, the reactor will heat up and the non-powered heat removal system will be able to remove the reduced power generated by the reactor.

      There is a video on the GE website that explains how the passive safety system works:

      ESBWR Passive Safety Systems Animation

    26. Re:Ocean view by MrWa · · Score: 1

      Why is it a better view with nothing there? I would be curious to see before and after sunrises...it may be better with the windmills silhouetted in the rising sun...I bet years from now, this type of place will actually draw people to see where we first started moving from a system that is based on pulling as much carbon as possible, as quickly as possible, from the Earth.

    27. Re:Ocean view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the original plan to build these somewhere else off the new england coast was voted down by the community, since all the rich people who had beachfront houses did consider them ugly.

    28. Re:Ocean view by houghi · · Score: 1
      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    29. Re:Ocean view by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      Honestly, Green is pretty in right now, places like this might find they boost their tourism since tourists will feel good about themselves for visiting an ecologically friendly place like that.

      These windmills are fairly elegant looking I think. They're not eyesores at all, and whenever I pass one along the highway, I'm happy to see it.

    30. Re:Ocean view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Twin Towers were designed to take the impact of the jumbo jets in service (727 and similar) at the time of construction, not the larger ones that hit it (767's). The design didn't account for the larger planes and their greater fuel loads thirty years in the future.

    31. Re:Ocean view by cliffski · · Score: 1

      I see. I wonder if there are similar considerations to do with changes in the future that may, for example, affect our attempts to safely store nuclear waste?

      None of this is a concern for wind, solar or wave power

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    32. Re:Ocean view by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the explanation regarding humidity and clear days. It makes sense. I never thought that the air could hold so much water that it would affect our view.

      Regarding views of the ocean, etc. I think that I know what you mean. In the Metro Vancouver Regional District, there are many places which would benefit from building appartments and other tall buildings. Unfortunately nobody is allowed to build them, because there are contracts and/or rules that prevent new buildings from blocking the view of the mountains. You can build something on the mountains, like homes for rich people, but you can't build apartments down in the valley.

    33. Re:Ocean view by sallgeud · · Score: 1

      how close do you have to stand to hear a modern wind turbine

      100 yards and they're still relatively audible. On a windier day, assuming wind noise on other objects isn't drowning them out, you can still hear them up to 1/2 mile away [my experience].

      If there's information on their dB production at a specific range, you could easily calculate based on the understanding that sound dissipates around -6dB for each doubling of distance.

    34. Re:Ocean view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I stood DIRECTLY UNDER some wind turbines in Kansas (off state highway 56)... this was in 2002. According to the intarwebs, this is the Gray County Wind Farm, a 112MW farm with 170 turbines built in 2001. My recollection is if I was within 5 or 10 feet I could BARELY hear a whirring from the nearest turbine. Mostly I could hear wind and rustling from the grass and scrub. Apparently newer turbines are even quieter, and can't be heard at all above the wind.

  6. Cool; Now to expand to the great lakes by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All the states around the great lakes could use these as well. What surprises me, is that if you have the pole there, then why not add in tidal or even wave power as well? I believe that the expensive part about all this, is getting anchored securely to the floor.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Cool; Now to expand to the great lakes by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      What surprises me, is that if you have the pole there, then why not add in tidal or even wave power as well?
      Isn't this what the already do in parts of Europe? (Denmark, I think.) It's hardly a novel idea.

    2. Re:Cool; Now to expand to the great lakes by peragrin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's not a bad idea. though it might be too far from shore to benefit much from tidal, it s worth a look.

      Increasing energy density is always good. At least until it goes boom.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    3. Re:Cool; Now to expand to the great lakes by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

      chicago has some days with a lot of wind but we get most of our power form Nuclear power.

    4. Re:Cool; Now to expand to the great lakes by MortenLJ · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Admitted, I don't know much about alternative energy, but I do know that wave- and tidal-power is still on the experimental state. I think the primary problem with wave energy is the tremendous strain which is placed on the structure over extended periods of time. Meanwhile Vestas, the turbine supplier for this project, has been producing wind turbines which has been used in practice since '79. I.e. wind energy is tried and tested technology which supplies my country (Denmark) with 19% of the total power consumed.

    5. Re:Cool; Now to expand to the great lakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      they already have a few of these in Lake Erie just south of Buffalo: http://www.buffaloniagara.org/Home/About_BNE/PressRoom/2007Archive/June/WindmillPoweraReality

    6. Re:Cool; Now to expand to the great lakes by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      As far as the great lakes thing. Well maybe but I have no idea how fast the great lakes get deep. Deep water really runs up the cost.
      Now the tide thing? probably not. Tidal systems are only practical in limited areas.
      What I want to know is why is it almost invisable during the summer but not the winter? That seems very odd to me.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    7. Re:Cool; Now to expand to the great lakes by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      I believe that the expensive part about all this, is getting anchored securely to the floor. Doesn't the wind shift directions every dawn/dusk?
      Can you even run a wind turbine in 'reverse'?

      I can't imagine that they're going to build wind turbines that can rotate into the wind.
      A vertical axis wind turbine wouldn't have that problem.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    8. Re:Cool; Now to expand to the great lakes by Fallingcow · · Score: 4, Informative

      Better visibility in the winter. All the water vapor freezes out of the air, basically.

    9. Re:Cool; Now to expand to the great lakes by maxume · · Score: 1

      Haze.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    10. Re:Cool; Now to expand to the great lakes by MortenLJ · · Score: 5, Informative

      I believe that the expensive part about all this, is getting anchored securely to the floor. Doesn't the wind shift directions every dawn/dusk? Can you even run a wind turbine in 'reverse'?

      I can't imagine that they're going to build wind turbines that can rotate into the wind. A vertical axis wind turbine wouldn't have that problem.

      Horizontal axis wind turbines turn to face the wind using servo motors. If the wind is too powerful, the mill is turned perpendicular to the wind.
    11. Re:Cool; Now to expand to the great lakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The heads on windmills constantly adjust to the wind conditions. They do in fact turn all the way around.

    12. Re:Cool; Now to expand to the great lakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Washington D.C. is one town which could get a lot of energy from wind turbines. They could install them completely unseen inside the capital building.

    13. Re:Cool; Now to expand to the great lakes by hal9000(jr) · · Score: 1

      There are more wind farms cropping up in central new york (find Syracuse onna map). You can see a few off to the east when flying into Hancock Intl, Syracuse's airport.

    14. Re:Cool; Now to expand to the great lakes by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      really? Where does EU have these combined together? I was aware of their wave AND wind, but I understood it all to be separate.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    15. Re:Cool; Now to expand to the great lakes by Zymergy · · Score: 4, Informative

      I Bet the turbines are similar to these: http://www.reuk.co.uk/OtherImages/repower-5mw-wind-turbine.jpg
      There is a motorized & computer-controlled 360 Degree bearing surface where the generator housing nacelle attaches to the vertical supporting column. The computers on-board each generator keep their own weather sensors for wind speed and direction as well as for power demands of the cluster of wind generators and they calculate how best to pitch their blades and what direction to point or if they need to feather their pitch because of an incoming storm, etc...
      General Electric has a detailed drawing of one of their models here: http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/wind_turbines/en/36mw/index.htm

    16. Re:Cool; Now to expand to the great lakes by GeckoX · · Score: 2

      What's with building them in the water? That just increases cost, initially, and maintenance access. Just build them on the shore. We're building them all along the eastern shore of lake Huron in Ontario. (No, they don't detract from the actual shoreline...along the shore means anywhere from 500m to 10k+ inland)

      --
      No Comment.
    17. Re:Cool; Now to expand to the great lakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      A little science assistance from Canada - you don't really get very big tides on the great lakes...(4 cm is about 1.5 inches)

      According to the Canadian Hydrologic/Hydrographic Service, the Great Lakes experience tides from 1 to 4 cm, the strongest being on Lakes Superior and Erie. These tides are often masked out by meteorologically induced phenomena, such as a seiche (pronounced "sayshe"). When wind pushes down on one part of a lake, the water surface rises in another part, producing waves (most noticeable on Lake Erie because the lake is so shallow).

    18. Re:Cool; Now to expand to the great lakes by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I believe that the expensive part about all this, is getting anchored securely to the floor. I don't think this is true (at least not in salt water). The marine environment is a bitch, and I can't even imagine trying to run a wind farm at sea. The corrosion is just amazing. I won't even get into tidal power, which presumably requires SUBMERGED moving parts and electricity.
      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    19. Re:Cool; Now to expand to the great lakes by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Ahh.. Being from Florida that never crossed my mind.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    20. Re:Cool; Now to expand to the great lakes by skelly33 · · Score: 1

      Unless you know something I don't (please share if so) tidal power does not use poles. It uses vast bodies of water sectioned off from the open sea requiring massive barriers, natural or man-made. Moreover, only certain places on the face of the planet are even reasonably ideal due to their large daily tidal swings - several miles out to sea generally is not one of them.

      As for wave power - maybe, possible for a small percentage increase, but again, wave energy is best harnessed in the shallows along the coast line where the power of the wave is naturally shaped for collection - collecting wave energy in open water would be a bit like a concert hall that uses cellphones for speakers: the energy is far too dissipated for realistic use (sorry, best analogy for diluted energy I could think of at the moment.)

      Perhaps the greatest potential from combining methods on a single site like this lies with wind + solar thermal since both require a tower. Each tower could have a surrounding heliostat array that focuses the sun's energy onto a heat receiver midway up the tower. Then above that, the wind turbine runs well above and without interference with the solar heat operation below.

    21. Re:Cool; Now to expand to the great lakes by AndersOSU · · Score: 4, Informative

      The winds are much, much, much, much more constant and also stronger off shore than on.

    22. Re:Cool; Now to expand to the great lakes by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      See the latest print issue of Wired.

    23. Re:Cool; Now to expand to the great lakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I drop these notes here and there, hoping they'll catch. Wind power is DANGEROUS! Why would we want to remove energy from the device which:

          - Moves heat energy around the planet?
          - Is part of the weather matrix?
          - Allows seeds to be disseminated?
          - Provides a means for birds to migrate?

      We are once again attacking that which we know little about. The only climate neutral energy source is solar( and that assumes we can manufacture the equipment reasonably efficiently). Let's leave wind power where it belongs!

    24. Re:Cool; Now to expand to the great lakes by crumley · · Score: 1

      They would probably want to skip at least Lake Superior as a site for wind turbines, since the fact that it ices over in the winter would be yet another complication on top of a dubious idea. In the Great Lakes region it probably makes more sense to just put the wind turbines on farm land. Maintenance and installation is much cheaper on land, and there is plenty of farm land around to use.

      --
      Preventive War is like committing suicide for fear of death. - Otto Von Bismarck
    25. Re:Cool; Now to expand to the great lakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought superior was the only great lake that didn't ice over, because of its depth? Erie should be the warmest (though it is the shallowest) and they do ice races on it in the winter so it must freeze pretty thick.

    26. Re:Cool; Now to expand to the great lakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem isn't the tremendous strain, but the corrosive action from the sea.

      All boats have something known as a "sacrificial anode" - a piece of metal bolted to them that corrodes easily so the rest of it doesn't corrode. Over time, that must be renewed/replaced.

      Any sort of turbine that is under water is going to need something similar.

      This question and issue has been brought up before on slashdot, where someone who's into marine stuff followed up with some detailed notes that basically said "the ocean pwns you."

  7. Well, I've been to Delaware... by biolysis · · Score: 3, Funny

    And I agree with everything you said.

    1. Re:Well, I've been to Delaware... by AndersOSU · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sorry for the hijack, but I'm going to attempt to insert some of the backstory here. See, I've lived in Delaware for the last 4 years (I'll gladly accept your pity)

      Getting this deal done was a seemingly never ending political nightmare. Delmarva, the recently deregulated power company has fought against it tooth and nail. They seemed to have been under the impression that signing a 25 year power deal at a fixed price was a bad idea because you know, the price of oil might go down in the future...

      Our governor was initially pushing a "clean coal" plant and against this deal. Blue Water Wind finally got the deal done due, in a large part, to netroots action pressuring the state legislature to force a deal down Delmarva's throat if they didn't start to negotiate in good faith. Delaware doesn't have ANY power generation, and buys all of it's power from other states. Delmarva wanted to continue to do this in spite of the rediculous congestion on our power infrastructure.

      Tommywonk has been doing a fantastic job covering this issue, and if anyone wants anymore information I'd suggest they head there. (Surprisingly he doesn't have an update about the deal being inked yet)

      Anyway, a warning to green power advocates, if this case is any indication, expect the entrenched interests to fight you every step of the way.

    2. Re:Well, I've been to Delaware... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting this deal done was a seemingly never ending political nightmare. It ain't a done deal until the fat lady sings, or at least you've had a few years of regular generation without political interference. It may be a decade before that's the case.
    3. Re:Well, I've been to Delaware... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry for the hijack, but I'm going to attempt to insert some of the backstory here.

      So he apologizes for making the first comment in the discussion that was actually on-topic and of substance? Only on slashdot...

    4. Re:Well, I've been to Delaware... by RobBebop · · Score: 1

      if this case is any indication, expect the entrenched interests to fight you every step of the way.

      What I don't understand is why don't the entrench providers shift gears from coal/nuclear/naturalgas and jump on the clean/safe wind & solar bandwagon? They HAVE the millions of dollars in capital needed to begin the transition from old technology to new technology. Unless they are waiting for specific advances in new technology that are around the corner, I think it is pure greed that they not evolve their businesses with the times.

      Then again, most of the Northeast is powered by either a Canadian waterfall or nuclear plants... and as long as those plants are safe there is no reason to shut them down.

      --
      Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
    5. Re:Well, I've been to Delaware... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a power plant at Indian River, but it's getting old. (I've been in Delaware for 20+ years.)

  8. Ah, good. by Paranatural · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I was afraid that the US would be losing out on the fundamentals of actually deploying such alternative energy setups. While I don't suspect wind power will be the answer to anything much more than maybe 5% of the world's power needs, we WILL need the engineering and technical know-how. Either we can get in on this stuff early and have our people (And by our people I am well aware some may be from other countries, bust most will stay in the US) gain the expertise and be home-grown, and thus, ultimately contribute to our society, culture or economy, or we would have to rely on experts from other countries almost exclusively, and end up being at the mercy of foreign nationals.

    This would be an ideal opportunity to track the total cost of installation and management vs. the total cost for an equivalent 'traditional' power plant.

    1. Re:Ah, good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a Liberal Eco-Dumbass weenie,
      I was afraid that the US would be losing out on the fundamentals of actually deploying such alternative energy setups.

      Between 1850 and 1970, over six million mostly small (1 horsepower or less) mechanical output wind machines were installed in the U.S. alone. The primary use was water-pumping and the main applications were stock watering and farm home water needs. Very large windmills, with rotors up to 18 meters in diameter, were used to pump water for the steam railroad trains that provided the primary source of commercial transportation in areas where there were no navigable rivers.

      In the late 19th century, the successful "American" multi-blade windmill design was used in the first large windmill to generate electricity.

      Take your house off the grid so the rest of us can live better with our carbon generating activities.

  9. Feasible? by spleen_blender · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder if it would be feasible to use the base upon which the turbines sit to put in place tidal generators as well.

    1. Re:Feasible? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Not redundant. Mod, please post to undo your mistake.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:Feasible? by RealErmine · · Score: 1

      Couldn't they at least have a mass, maybe a magnet, that floats inside the turbine post, bobbing up and down with the waves? They could build the post like a giant Forever Flashlight to grab some energy off the undulating water.

      --
      Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
    3. Re:Feasible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it is redundant, because another earlier post says the same exact thing. That's the definition of redundant.

  10. Dela-Where?? by mcamino · · Score: 3, Funny

    What state is Delaware in? Isn't it just a county South of Philadelphia? The wind power will be used to keep the chickens cool in the summer, and warm in the winter, because everybody knows, nobody lives in delaware except the Banks,Duponts, and Chicken Farms (Tyson, Purdue, etc)

    1. Re:Dela-Where?? by k_187 · · Score: 4, Funny

      The wind power will be used to keep the chickens cool in the summer WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY! Sorry, couldn't help myself.
      --
      11 was a racehorse
      12 was 12
      1111 Race
      12112
    2. Re:Dela-Where?? by Count_Froggy · · Score: 1

      Do you know why Camden NJ doesn't have a professional baseball team? If Camden had one, Philadelphia would want one too!

      --
      If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?
    3. Re:Dela-Where?? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      The state is called Delmarva. However, IIMN Delmarva kicked Delaware out because he snored too loud, and both Mary and Virginia are lesbians.

      Uncyclopedia doesn't mention Delmarva, but it does have an entry on Delaware.

      Today I saw a squirrel. For all I know, it might have been the only squirrel in Delaware. Wow! I bet it lives in a tree somewhere. I bet trees here look completely different from trees anywhere else. On the state border, I saw a sign that said
      WELCOME TO DELAWARE
      POPULATION: 1 SQUIRREL
      ALSO: 1 TREE
      I noticed they forgot to mention 1 super fun person -- my Uncle Frank -- but they can't get every single person in a state to do the census, so I guess it would be a little off. You have to admit, a difference of 1 ain't bad. I bet no other state comes that close.
      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    4. Re:Dela-Where?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i guess you have to live on the east coast to get this one...

    5. Re:Dela-Where?? by arbitraryaardvark · · Score: 1

      What state is Delaware in? Isn't it just a county South of Philadelphia?
      It's three counties. Two at high tide.

  11. 1.6 billion for 50,000 homes? by Vellmont · · Score: 1

    This is insane. 1,600,000,000/50,000 is $32,000 per home. Even over 25 years that's $1280/home/year (and this doesn't include maintenance costs). If this is going to be a real solution costs have to come down enormously.

    --
    AccountKiller
    1. Re:1.6 billion for 50,000 homes? by mshannon78660 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      $1280/home/year is only about $107/home/month - that's close to what my electric bill is now (although I live in Texas, not Delaware). Doesn't really sound like they have a long way to go, cost-wise.

    2. Re:1.6 billion for 50,000 homes? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have an excellent point...

      However, electricity has tripled in the last 20 years from 5.3 to 16~ish cents. Assuming in the next 20 years, it does the same... then 1,280 would be roughly $430 adjusted for inflation- which will be a huge bargain.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    3. Re:1.6 billion for 50,000 homes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Furthermore, this is only half the capacity. In theory they can sell their surplus to other utility companies.

    4. Re:1.6 billion for 50,000 homes? by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      $1.6 billion is the cost to build it. There will need to be a fleet of service vessels and several full-time employees (I would guess around 50) to service and provide administrative functions for the project. Salaries, benefits, fuel (think diesel for service ships), and parts should easily add tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars per year in operating costs.

    5. Re:1.6 billion for 50,000 homes? by b0bby · · Score: 1

      The 50,000 homes figure is for the less than 50% of capacity which Delmarva Power has contracted to buy. "The rest would be sold to other customers."

    6. Re:1.6 billion for 50,000 homes? by burni · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are caculating with a constant price for electric energy, but as the past years tought all of us, thus would be insane.

      So you should basicly add the inflationary process to your caculations,
      which is citing wikipedia[1] 3.9 %.

      On the other hand the price for primary energy sources like nuclear fuel, natural gas and
      most important coal, will unlikely decrease, they will rise, .

      And one word to the insane costs, when nuclear power plants are built the prices are nearly
      the same, nuclear powerplants (as far as I know from germany) have a return of invest of ~25 years
      after that they "produce" money, convetional power plants ~20 years, with usage of exhaust heat
      perhaps less.

      And while time goes on if a technology is used, it will get cheaper.

      [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA

    7. Re:1.6 billion for 50,000 homes? by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      My electric bill is currently $300/month so $1280 sounds like a good deal to me!

    8. Re:1.6 billion for 50,000 homes? by GeckoX · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That is somewhat insane, sort of...as others point out there is some fallacy in why that is insane though.

      What is insane about it is that the cost is highly inflated, both initial and maintenance-wise, because it is being built _in_the_ocean_.

      That is what is insane, never mind stupid and senseless.

      Build it onshore and the cost comes way down. This looks almost like it is a project designed to 'prove' that wind power is not financially viable.

      --
      No Comment.
    9. Re:1.6 billion for 50,000 homes? by J-1000 · · Score: 1

      And even in Texas we have access to Green Mountain Energy (100% wind). It has been around a while now and costs the same as TXU.

    10. Re:1.6 billion for 50,000 homes? by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Wind turbines rarely generate full capacity. It is probably a reasonable assumption to schedule the energy production at 1/2 capacity.

    11. Re:1.6 billion for 50,000 homes? by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      Electricity costs have not tripled unless that happend in the last year or so, which in fact it did not.

    12. Re:1.6 billion for 50,000 homes? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's also more wind away from the coast. It would be cheaper to build it on land, but it also wouldn't produce as much power.

    13. Re:1.6 billion for 50,000 homes? by clbyjack81 · · Score: 1
      However, electricity has tripled in the last 20 years from 5.3 to 16~ish cents.

      That depends on where you live. I am in eastern Washington and pay only 5.21 cents per kWh. Virtually all of our power comes from hydroelectric and a small part from wind so the eco people are happy too!

      --
      Cole's Axiom: The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant. The population is growing.
    14. Re:1.6 billion for 50,000 homes? by Paranatural · · Score: 1

      $107/month is ridiculously low. Here in southern Louisiana it's at least around $200/mo for a mid-sized apartment.

    15. Re:1.6 billion for 50,000 homes? by Fyzzler · · Score: 1

      Green Mountain Energy gets the bulk of their power from Natural Gas fired generation. I was a business customer for years and I actually read the fine print on the Pie Graph in their monthly energy news letter. Their wind and solar plants are mostly technology demos.

      --
      I have one question. If the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture is not in charge of Gundam, then who is?
    16. Re:1.6 billion for 50,000 homes? by saxoholic · · Score: 1

      In addition to what everyone else has also said -- this is also a one time cost. They have no coal or oil they need to keep purchasing, the wind is free. So in the long run it will work out cheaper. And fuel prices are only going to go up in the foreseeable future.

    17. Re:1.6 billion for 50,000 homes? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      As the poster below indicated, you may be benefiting from earlier investments in renewable power.

      In Texas, our oil, coal, & gas (with some nukes) based power has gone from 5.3 (1983) to 16 cents (today). I know from my research on solar. It was not a spike overnight- it was a nice slow rise.

      In fact, the spot market is running 24 cents (which people are being dumped on for 3-4 months when their tiny power companies go bankrupt)

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    18. Re:1.6 billion for 50,000 homes? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1


      Average Prices of Selected Fuels and Electricity, 1980-2006
      (In dollars per unit, except electricity, in cents per kWh. Represents price to end-users, except as noted)
      http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908464.html
      5.36 in 1980
      10.40 in 2006

      http://www.energymarketexchange.com/emex/index_zip
      put in a texas zip and see 13.27 to 15.44 in 2008 (today)

      Now, some of those companies offering 13c/kwh are going bankrupt and customers are stuck at 24c/kwh for 3 to 4 months before being allowed back in a company that offers 14 ish c/kwh.

      Inflation is very sneaky.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    19. Re:1.6 billion for 50,000 homes? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Your chart is in "REAL", I.e. Inflation Adjusted... Dollars.

      In other words, you work 10% less to earn the money for electricity today. But it still went up 3x in price.

      I.e., in 1980, you made $30k for a professional job that pays $92k today.

      Your electricity went from 5 cents to 14 cents-- you work slighly less time to earn 14 cents than you did to earn 5 cents.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    20. Re:1.6 billion for 50,000 homes? by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Interesting


      that's close to what my electric bill is now

      Why does everyone seem to think I was saying this would be the electric costs/month?

      This isn't the cost to produce electricity, nor the cost it will sell at. It's JUST the cost to produce the plant divided over 25 years. Maintenance, transmission, and any overhead aren't included.

      The cost of the actual electricity is a totally different number. The point here is that the construction costs alone are VERY high.

      --
      AccountKiller
    21. Re:1.6 billion for 50,000 homes? by Dputiger · · Score: 1

      Where are you paying 16 cents for electricity? It would seem to be someplace outside (most) of the lower 48 states, as the average national rate in December, 2007, was 8.91c per kilowatt hour. Idaho was the lowest, at 5.2 cents, KY (where I live) was 5.76 cents, and Connecticut was the highest at 15.81 cents. Basically, if you live in New York or Connecticut, you're stuck with power that costs more than 15 cents per kilowatt hour, but the rest of us have a much better cost structure. Considering I only pay 5.76 cents now, it seems unlikely that electricity 20 years ago was as low as 1.77 cents. It may have been, though--I don't claim to know for sure.

    22. Re:1.6 billion for 50,000 homes? by J-1000 · · Score: 1

      You have a link? The Green Mountain site clearly states that their electricity is "100% renewables". They contrast it to non-renewables, which include natural gas. The only fine print I found merely stated that they can't guarantee their "cleaner" energy will go straight to your house, but they do guarantee that they contribute to the grid as much as you use (providing the same net effect). It's possible that during their start up phase they had no choice but to make some concessions.

  12. more waves ruined by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not that Delaware is known for its surf, but these things will probably block the little surf those poor, wave hungry longboarders get. They should throw in an artificial surf reef in front of the things to make up for it.

  13. Technical Details by TheSync · · Score: 4, Informative

    Technical data here...

    Bluewater Wind agrees to build a 150 turbine, 450MW wind project 12-13 miles off of Rehoboth Beach. Delmarva Power agrees to buy up to 300MW at any one time. The cost to Delmarva ratepayers for energy and capacity will be 10.56 cents/kWh in 2007 dollars. Delmarva is also purchasing Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) associated with its energy purchases.

    So evidently these are 150 x 3MW turbines. Generally turbines of this class have a blade space diameter of 100m.

    It is interesting to note that while Delaware has no nuclear reactors, it is across the river from the Salem dual 1.1 MWe PWRs and the co-located Hope Creek 1.0 MWe BWR in New Jersey, for a total of 3.2 MWe of nuclear in the neighborhood.

    1. Re:Technical Details by path · · Score: 1

      Delaware is within 50 miles of four nuclear plant complexes.

      http://dema.delaware.gov/information/nuc_haz.shtml

    2. Re:Technical Details by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 1

      Did you mean "dual 1.1 GWe" instead of "MWe"? and 1.0GWe ?

    3. Re:Technical Details by TheSync · · Score: 1

      er from the Salem [nrc.gov] dual 1.1 MWe PWRs and the co-located Hope Creek [nrc.gov] 1.0 MWe BWR in New Jersey, for a total of 3.2 MWe of nuclear in the neighborhood.

      Correction: 3.2 GWe, not MWe.

  14. Thats a heck of a pole by Technopaladin · · Score: 1

    90 feet underground, 75 underwater, 250 above sea. And can withstand Hurricanes? Like to see that test carried out. Really impressive feat if engineering if they can do it. It occurs to me that they mean Hurricane force winds like 60-80mph and not Class 4-5 Hurricane winds of 80-120mph. course now that I consider it wouldnt be many houses needing power if that sort of storm hit.

    1. Re:Thats a heck of a pole by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Category 4 & 5 Hurricanes making landfall is fairly rare, actually. Also, Category 4 & 5 Hurricanes making it as far north as Delaware are also pretty rare.

    2. Re:Thats a heck of a pole by Amouth · · Score: 1

      with a 1.6 billion investment.. i would count on "pretty rare" being "pretty common"

      then again.. that is just my luck

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    3. Re:Thats a heck of a pole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Design wind speed for the Delaware shore is between 110mph and 120mph according to the American Society of Civil Engineers, which means a Category 2 or 3.

    4. Re:Thats a heck of a pole by Titoxd · · Score: 1

      Any hurricane reaching Delaware is a pretty rare phenomenon, regardless of strength. Actually, in the 150 years for which we have records, no hurricanes have made landfall in Delaware, and only two have caused hurricane-force winds in the state.

    5. Re:Thats a heck of a pole by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      That area of the mid Atlantic (NJ-DE-MD-VA) is not prone to hurricanes (although they have been hit). When one comes north they usually hit NC, or weaken over the colder water and hit Long Island.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  15. Why make them hard to see? by jtroutman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd actually like the reminder that we are doing something like this. I can already see coal-fired power plants from the freeway, why is it a positive thing that something like this, which doesn't belch black smoke, can only been seen? You don't want the tourists to know that you're for a cleaner environment?

    --
    I stole this sig from a more creative user.
    1. Re:Why make them hard to see? by The+Warlock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For some reason people like to endlessly bitch that windmills are "eyesores", as if this in and of itself is reason not to use them. They don't look unsightly to me.

      --
      I've upped my standards, so up yours.
    2. Re:Why make them hard to see? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      A couple reasons. First, quite a few vacationers go out to see a sunrise over the ocean, and, while I agree the turbines would be awesome, many might not think so, and would go to a different beach (not good for Rehoboth).

      Second, think of the children. Kids see this big cool thing out in the ocean, parents turn around for a second, and you've got a 5 year old swimming out too far. Not likely, and I'm not saying it's a valid reason, but it could happen. Also, full grown idiots in a kayak might try it if they can see the thing, and they'd probably rather not deal with that either.

      Third, less birds. If it's far enough out that we can't see, chances are there will be less birds out there for the thing to hit.

      Forth, it might be windier out there than it is closer to the land, and they're telling us it can't be seen as an extra piece of information. I don't know this is the case, I'm just postulating.

    3. Re:Why make them hard to see? by TomorrowPlusX · · Score: 2

      Sorry to just say the old AOLler "me too", but I think windmills are beautiful. Absolutely breathtaking.

      As far as I'm concerned, the more, the merrier.

      --

      lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
    4. Re:Why make them hard to see? by turgid · · Score: 1

      They make me feel nauseous when they're turning.

    5. Re:Why make them hard to see? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      That's because you're not a Kennedy. If you were a member of the blessed royal family of Massachusetts, you'd know that a windmill six miles offshore is so loud and so ugly that it will cause the value of your home on the shore to drop so far it will go negative.

      The noise alone will be causing permanent hearing problems for your children. Won't somebody please think of the children? When did saving the environment become so important that it justified making my children look at something ugly? Nooooooo!

  16. Hurricane-Force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "the units are to be constructed to withstand hurricane-force winds."

    Just like the leeves that held back Katrina so successfully?

    1. Re:Hurricane-Force? by initdeep · · Score: 1

      you do of course realize that winds had nothing to do with the levee breaks in new orleans right?

      it was instead storm surge and flooding from rain waters which caused this.

      And those levees were well past their design point when they were breached.

      try again.

    2. Re:Hurricane-Force? by mudshark · · Score: 1

      And what caused the storm surge? Think hard....

      --
      In other news, astrophysicists have announced that they now know what all that dark matter is: it's stupidity.
  17. Beach????? by 12345Doug · · Score: 2, Funny

    There's a beach at Dewey? I only thought there were bars there. Who knew.

    1. Re:Beach????? by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

      Where else are you going to piss.. Or sleep..

      (possibly in that order :p)

  18. The two big questions.... by ivan256 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They're not answered anywhere on the company's website or in the article...

    The answers to these questions are important when determining whether this project is worthy of support or not:

    Who is paying to build the windfarm?
    Who gets to keep the profit from the windfarm?

    For the windfarm they wanted to build around here, the answers were "me" (through tax dollars), and "not me" (as in some private corporation got to keep the profit, even though they didn't pay for the initial investment). Luckily a sufficient number of people were able to see that they were getting screwed through the veil of "environmental responsibility" in order to get the project canceled.

    1. Re:The two big questions.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wow, you do realize that the only currently realistic way to make renewable energy work is for the government to fund it. You have a problem with the government building it and them letting a company control it under tight restrictions?

      By your logic, we shouldn't get tax cuts for hybrid cars, or tax cuts and government rebates on solar cells in our homes, because in the end our tax dollars are paying for it...

      Economy isn't the only answer and in very few cases will you currently see immediate economic results when it comes to renewable energy. If we just wait for it to work economically, we'll keep digging the hole deeper.

      It's not about the $$ equation, it's about the energy equation.

    2. Re:The two big questions.... by T3Tech · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Who is paying to build the windfarm?
      Who gets to keep the profit from the windfarm? I'm not sure of the answer to these questions and I live close enough to the region to have heard the smear campaign Delmarva Power (the local power monopoly) was running against Bluewater on the radio. Their radio ad went into how it would cost customer's so much more money, yadda, yadda, FUD, blah, blah, FUD. From my limited knowledge on it, I believe Delmarva had a more lucrative deal in the works with some onshore wind farms and my guess is that Delmarva viewed Bluewater as being a real threat to their profits.

      Apparently Delmarva has come to a contract agreement with Bluewater now. There's a bunch of related news links available here, which I haven't bothered to read.
      --
      Of course I didn't RTFA... why would I do that? You really are new here aren't you? Don't let my UID fool you.
    3. Re:The two big questions.... by Thelasko · · Score: 3, Informative

      From what I understand Bluewater Wind is building the farm and selling the electricity to the local utility, Delmarva Power. Delmarva is independent of the state and is only entering the contract because the State of Delaware requires it to do so. It doesn't say anything about government funding.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    4. Re:The two big questions.... by WinPimp2K · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "By your logic, we shouldn't get tax cuts for hybrid cars, or tax cuts and government rebates on solar cells in our homes, because in the end our tax dollars are paying for it..."

      Don't know about the OP's logic, but by my logic you are absolutely correct. Why should you get to hold a fricken gun to my head (courtesy of the IRS) to pay for your Prius? If you want to buyt a Prius, or install solar cells on your roof, fine - and more power to you. But when you use the government to steal money from others to pay for it, well it is time for you to STFU and pay for the real costs of your toys.

      You know the way everyone is supposed to pay for the real costs of using oil etc. - or does such blatant hypocrisy just not register?

      --

      You either believe in rational thought or you don't
    5. Re:The two big questions.... by kmac06 · · Score: 0, Troll

      So Delmarva Power will be legally required to buy this electricity, and at the same time will have to pay the cost of the infrastructure to supply the full load of electricity, in case of little/no wind. Since the cost of this infrastructure is generally a bigger cost than the actual electricity itself, they will be forced to raise rates. So the OP is correct, the consumers will be getting screwed by paying higher electricity bills, and this "green" company will make a killing through government mandates.

    6. Re:The two big questions.... by Thelasko · · Score: 1
      The op wrote:

      the answers were "me" (through tax dollars) Read more carefully.
      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    7. Re:The two big questions.... by LucBorg · · Score: 0, Troll

      Exactly, the massive subsidies provided through tax dollars to build and maintain these sorts of ecofascist developments is criminal.

    8. Re:The two big questions.... by kmac06 · · Score: 1

      What's the practical difference between a government mandated tax and a government mandated raise in basic utility rates that goes to some private corporation that does nothing beneficial to the citizens?

    9. Re:The two big questions.... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...install solar cells on your roof, fine - and more power to you...

      Comedy's finest.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    10. Re:The two big questions.... by RajivSLK · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The reason to offer rebates to prius buyers is simple. The market doesn't charge other car buyers for the pollution and other real or perceived negative effects of their choice vehicle. These negative effects are shared amongst the populace at large; the costs savings and benefits of a more polluting vehicle are enjoyed by one person alone yet everybody ends up somewhat worse off (by living with poorer air quality etc). So the government is taking a look at prius buyers and saying "Hey, your vehicle choice doesn't result is as many negatives so here is a credit."

      Without such credits and rebates their would be no financial incentive not to pollute and generally create a mess of the environment as the market is unable to capture and charge you for these costs.

    11. Re:The two big questions.... by RealGrouchy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Really? What about the damage done by increased congestion and sprawl?

      Plus, if someone gets a $1000 rebate for buying a Prius, which has about 1/3 less fuel consumption than a regular car, then why don't people get a $3000 rebate for buying a bicycle, which has about 3/3 less fuel consumption than a regular car?

      And what happens to their old car? Before we had the person's old car on the roads, now we have the person's old car (now being driven by somebody else) AND a Prius. If they didn't have a car previously, then we're still adding a Prius' fuel consumption and emissions to the equation. And it would take tremendous amounts of energy to scrap all (most) old cars and replace them with new, incrementally-more-efficient hybrid vehicles in one fell swoop.

      We cannot continue to expand our energy consumption and think that more technology and more advanced technology will solve all our problems.

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    12. Re:The two big questions.... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between a taxpayer receiving a credit to purchase something that benefits society, and a corporation receiving a grant in order to turn a profit.

      If the corporation were going to lose money on the project (like you do on a Prius relative to many other cars), you might have a point... But they won't. They're *guaranteed* a profit by energy contracts they obtain prior to construction.

      I see your incorrect accusation of hypocrisy, and raise you some logic.

    13. Re:The two big questions.... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      You may be right. But it also doesn't say anything about privately raised capital. Most private companies are quick to reveal their backers before a project like this to build confidence in their position. It seems fishy to me that they don't say where the billions are coming from. The only reason I can see to hide it is to prevent public outcry.

      I may be wrong, though. Like I said.. There's just a distinct lack of data.

    14. Re:The two big questions.... by ivan256 · · Score: 0

      Incidentally, who cares if the energy is "renewable"? The only things we should actually care about collectively are that the source is non-polluting, and sustainable for a sufficiently long period... Say, until renewable power is cheap enough to not need a subsidy.

      We could build (profitable) nuclear plants to hold us over until fusion, or solar, or wind are practical... Or we could subsidize those other options until that happens.... In terms of economic impact, I prefer the former. They're basically equal in terms of environmental impact.

    15. Re:The two big questions.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, in order to qualify as a good idea, a utility (wind, in this case) must distribute its income back to the entire community?

      Did it occur to anyone that the corporation in question might make some long term investment plans, hire people, and work in the community in question?

    16. Re:The two big questions.... by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Typically, they are legally required to disclose any government funding. However, I am not a lawyer in any state, let alone Delaware.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  19. West Coast Jealousy by andre3001 · · Score: 2, Funny

    wow, I'm surprised California hasn't jumped in to do it first. Suddenly I feel so....environmentally unsound.

    1. Re:West Coast Jealousy by ChakatSanddancer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Cali just does it quietly. Delaware is harping about how they've got 50000 people covered while California has quietly built farms which power 1.5 million. We've got plenty of mountain passes and the like that we really don't need wind farms on the ocean.

    2. Re:West Coast Jealousy by wwalker98 · · Score: 1

      When driving out to Palm Springs from LA on a business trip I saw that there was some kind of wind farm in the mountain pass. It seemed to be cleverly placed and probably cost less than putting it way out in the ocean.

    3. Re:West Coast Jealousy by nsayer · · Score: 2, Informative

      wow, I'm surprised California hasn't jumped in to do it first. We did.
    4. Re:West Coast Jealousy by El_Oscuro · · Score: 1

      It is cleverly placed. And also one of the first wind farms. I went through that pass in the mid 1980s. Between the wind and the hill, my motorcycle overheated. I remember seeing the turbines while waiting for my motor to cool off enough.

      --
      "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
  20. Not secure against NIMBY attacks! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Funny

    'Each turbine [will sit on] a pole about 250 feet above the waterline... the units are to be constructed to withstand hurricane-force winds. From the shore, the park will be visible only on clear winter days, and the turbines will be nearly invisible during summer months when Rehoboth Beach fills with vacationers. Don't they know that if a NIMBY can see an offending structure at any time with a household telescope, it's still too close?
    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:Not secure against NIMBY attacks! by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think Ted Kennedy can still see it from his house.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    2. Re:Not secure against NIMBY attacks! by lpangelrob · · Score: 1

      I was wandering around the Internet and stumbled upon this page... NIMBY is actually a problem in... oh... rural Illinois.

      The real estate figures are mostly hyperbole, as it doesn't take into account that there's sort of a housing market recession in progress, and a house on 5 acres for $319,000 *still* sounds high. But that is an awkward picture on that page.

  21. This was a huge political battle... by tjstork · · Score: 5, Informative

    I actually live in Delaware, and for those fools who aren't in the know, Delaware has some of the lowest property taxes in the area, good rail transit, and good gun laws.

    Now, the windmill battle in Delaware was an EPIC battle. On one side, you had the utility that wanted to build a gas turbine, and on the other side, you had the windmill people.

    The backdrop is that the utility already doubled rates because of rising fuel prices, and the state was already importing a great deal of energy at spot (read high) prices. To work around this, the state needed its own generation.

    Now, the utility wanted to build a new gas turbine facility, because the capital costs were pretty cheap and they had enterprise experience with both operating and constructing them. The windmill people wanted a windmill farm, and, they probably would have lost on merits of costs, because the windmills are nearly twice as expensive as a cheap gas turbine station. However, I think what's happened is that, between everyone being so spooked by the perpetually rising fuel costs, and, a newly enacted state sustainability law, they more or less had to build the wind mill.

    It will be cool if it works, but I'm cynically betting on rolling blackouts on calm, hot summer days.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:This was a huge political battle... by mugnyte · · Score: 4, Informative


        i'll take your bet.

      Electricity is a grid of multiple sources, kept in tight balance at several geographic levels. The output of all of them fluctuate constantly, as does use.

      When there's not enough wind, it'll come from somewhere else. The concept is to build a diverse portfolio of sources so that we're not as affected by situations in any one.

    2. Re:This was a huge political battle... by skiingyac · · Score: 2, Informative

      Europe gets like 20% of its power from wind, and doesn't have these kind of issues.

      The wind farm will be on the coast, and when the most energy is used (summer and winter), the ocean temp is conveniently the most different from the land. Plus it is windy 250' above the ocean several miles off the coast a lot more often than it is standing on land.

      How many times have you been to the ocean when there are no waves (which are caused by wind out at sea), or it isn't windy?

    3. Re:This was a huge political battle... by moosesocks · · Score: 4, Informative

      That is sort of odd, considering that gas turbines and wind power fill two separate niches.

      Wind power provides good support to base-load power, while gas turbines can fill demands during "peak" periods.

      Also, there are fairly extensive atmospheric/climatic studies performed before sites are selected for wind farms. Given the height of the turbines, it's probably a pretty safe bet that there'll be some wind virtually all the time.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    4. Re:This was a huge political battle... by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up!
      The Utility will likely still need the gas turbine plant for load following.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    5. Re:This was a huge political battle... by The+Warlock · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, it just doesn't need to build a second gas turbine, which was the alternative to building these windmills. They can't throw out the original one, but that was never the plan. The idea was always one gas turbine + wind farm would be better than two gas turbines.

      --
      I've upped my standards, so up yours.
    6. Re:This was a huge political battle... by LucBorg · · Score: 1

      That's a load of crap. If you love the new Soviet Empire of Europe so much, go live there. Nuclear FTW!

    7. Re:This was a huge political battle... by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

      "It will be cool if it works, but I'm cynically betting on rolling blackouts on calm, hot summer days.

      Which is why solar and wind complement each other so well.

      --
      Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
    8. Re:This was a huge political battle... by nanoakron · · Score: 2, Informative

      And the bonus is that in 10 years time, the wind turbines will have broken even and, barring maintenance costs, will be producing very cheap electricity.

      Whilst the gas turbine would be paying over the odds for Russian natural gas.

      Short termers and NIMBYs are ruining the environment. Wind turbines are a good investment.

    9. Re:This was a huge political battle... by spurdy · · Score: 1

      When there's not enough wind, it'll come from somewhere else.

      Which means that online generation ("spinning reserve") will have to be available to instantly supply the shortfall when the wind stops blowing. So, the utility is going to either have to build such a facility, or purchase spinning reserve service to meet their reliability obligations. That's going to reduce the economic advantage of the purchased wind power.

    10. Re:This was a huge political battle... by houghi · · Score: 1

      Idiots they are. Why go for the OR/OR option if an AND/AND option would the better way to go.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    11. Re:This was a huge political battle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>It will be cool if it works, but I'm cynically betting on rolling blackouts on calm, hot summer days.

      Buy solar panels, solved that problem.

    12. Re:This was a huge political battle... by mugnyte · · Score: 1

      Wind generation is placed strategically - remember, its still an investment and they need to sell the energy to recoup on a predictable schedule. This means a historic study with several yield models are built. This models also take into account the weather and census patterns for usage. By the time the project is green-lighted, the variability of a wind farm is ensured to be within the tolerances of the grid's spinning reserve.

        You're not totally off-base, but this issue has been discussed at length. Only one grid gets penetration over 15% with wind, but it's been examined for problems up to about 25%.

      More details

      Plans for 50% wind penetration are already in the air.

    13. Re:This was a huge political battle... by spurdy · · Score: 1
      Thanks for the links. Yes, these issues have been discussed and studied, but not completely resolved. See the incident that occurred earlier this year in Texas: Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency

      I'm not aware of anybody in the US looking at 50% penetration. There is a DOE-sponsored study going on now to look at the transmission required to integrate 20%-30% wind energy in the Eastern Interconnect. That's an enormous amount of generation when you're looking at a 15-30% capacity factor. There is still a great deal of concern in the transmission industry about how to integrate that much generation into the grid while maintaining reliability.

  22. My daughter and son-in-law by Count_Froggy · · Score: 1

    There are some people who live in Delaware, I've even met a few who work and live there. There is even one county (New Castle) where the people outnumber the chickens!

    --
    If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?
  23. Those specs don't make sense... by d474 · · Score: 1

    If the prop is mounted 250 feet up on the pole, but each blade is 150 ft, that means the diameter of the the prop is 300 ft., so... the blade digs in the water by 50 ft?

    Unless of course, the bottom of the blade on the down swing is 250ft. above the water, then 250ft + 300ft means the top blade will be over 550 feet above the surface of the water!?

    Me so confuse.

    --
    Authority questions you. Return the favor.
    1. Re:Those specs don't make sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The prop is mounted with the center of the prop at the top of the pole (like, well, a normal wind turbine). 150' blade on a 250' pole means the blade clears the ground by 100 feet. The blades will also swing 150' above the top of the pole on the other side of the rotation.

    2. Re:Those specs don't make sense... by clonan · · Score: 2, Informative

      The hub is 250 feet up.

      The blades are 150 feet long.

      Therefore the tip of the blades will be 150 feet from the hub...At the low point it will be 100 feet above the water. At the high point it will be 400 feet above the water.

    3. Re:Those specs don't make sense... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      If the blade is attached 250 ft up, and is 150 ft long....

      250 - 150 = 100...

      There should be 100 ft between the blade and the water. What does the diameter have to do with anything?

    4. Re:Those specs don't make sense... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > If the prop is mounted 250 feet up on the pole, but each blade is 150 ft, that means the diameter of the the prop is 300 ft., so... the blade digs in the water by 50 ft?

      Um no, it's the radius that's important, not the diameter. The blade will miss the water by 250 - 150 = 100 feet. The tip of the blade will also travel 150 feet above the top of the pole.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    5. Re:Those specs don't make sense... by residieu · · Score: 1

      The prop is mounted at its center, so the blades extend 150 feet above the center, and 150 feet below the center. The blades stay 100 feet above the water.

    6. Re:Those specs don't make sense... by Fourpole · · Score: 1

      The diameter is 300 feet but the radius is the size of the blade, 150. The center of the circle the blades will sweep is 250 feet high. With a 150 foot blade, the tip will swing 100 feet above the water at the lowest, and 400 feet off the water at the highest.

    7. Re:Those specs don't make sense... by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      I didn't read the specs, but based on what you said, the blade misses the water, by 100 ft. 250 ft - 150 ft = 100 ft. I admit that my math is rusty, so there may be obvious mistakes. The idea is that for our discussion, the blade length is basically equal to the radius, and the pole is just another radius of another circle.

      To put it another way mathematically, based on your numbers, the blade length is 100 ft above the water at its lowest point, and 400 ft at its highest.

      Clear? :^)

    8. Re:Those specs don't make sense... by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      *sigh* It looks like I should have refreshed the page, before replying. :^)

    9. Re:Those specs don't make sense... by Joebert · · Score: 1

      You must be new here.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  24. Ah... home! by DelawareGT · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Not bad! At peak capacity, the off-shore wind farm can power 110,000 homes in the state (nearly a third of all homes) [1][2].

    Living in Delaware definitely has its perks. Blue crabs, the beaches, pumpkin' chunkin' festivals , scrapple (mmm!). Also, fans of craft beer will note that Dogfish Head is brewed there too.

    [1] http://www.bluewaterwind.com/de_overview.htm
    [2] http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/10000.html

    1. Re:Ah... home! by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      gah, scrapple. My cousin introduced me to that last month when I visited her in Philly. bleh!

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  25. They changed the state motto by gelfling · · Score: 3, Funny

    From "Small Wonder" to "Don't Blink". But for the hundreds of State Troopers on I-95 making up the State's entire budget, you could drive through Delaware in about 6 minutes.

    1. Re:They changed the state motto by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      No way; it takes at least a half hour, because of all the damn tolls! Between Delaware and Baltimore, I started driving down 81, because it was cheaper to drive out of my way than to pay 15 dollars in tolls.

      Of course, with the gas these days...

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    2. Re:They changed the state motto by T3Tech · · Score: 1

      The toll issue though is all Maryland's fault. AFAIK, the only toll that Delaware has is at the DE Memorial Bridge coming into DE from NJ.

      The toll at the MD/DE line is where Maryland hit's motorists both ways and backs up traffic for miles to do so. Relatively easy to avoid by using 279, a couple back roads (or rt 2/4)and 896. Of course there's still the abyssmal screwup in engineering/design of DE I-95 in the marsh area that brings traffic to a standstill at rush hours.

      In other news, MD's unofficial motto of "The Free State" has changed to "Leave your Money with Us" or as I've seen elsewhere "If you can dream it, We can tax it."

      --
      Of course I didn't RTFA... why would I do that? You really are new here aren't you? Don't let my UID fool you.
    3. Re:They changed the state motto by PianoMan8 · · Score: 1

      Way offtopic, but..

      Ummm.. No. The toll on I-95 near the MD/Del line is in Delaware and run by Delaware people, and that's where all the money goes. Just like the DE memorial bridge from NJ. If you can prove otherwise, I'd like to know.

      And yes, you can avoid it, but troopers hang out on those backroads too to catch people avoiding it.. while technically not illegal, they will watch you like a hawk and get your for any infraction. And guess what they say on the side of their cars? Delaware.

      Delaware has 6 miles of the most heavily traffic'ed road on the east coast running through the top tip of the state, and they use that revenue stream to the fullest.

      MD's no saint (see the $4 northbound toll going over the susquehanna which used to be significantly less not all that long ago), but Delaware is much, much worse.

      I grew up in Harford County, MD, went to college in upstate new york and lives in boston for several more years, I paid a -lot- of money to Delaware.

      --
      - --
      "I Hate Quotes" -- Samuel L. Clemens
    4. Re:They changed the state motto by PianoMan8 · · Score: 1

      Way offtopic, but..

      Ummm.. No. The toll on I-95 near the MD/Del line is in Delaware and run by Delaware people, and that's where all the money goes. Just like the DE memorial bridge from NJ. If you can prove otherwise, I'd like to know.

      A quick look at google maps confirms it. The toll is the I-95 toll is located about a mile inside of Delaware. I know of no law of interstate commerce that would allow Maryland to run a toll boot on Delaware land.

      http://xkcd.com/386/

      --
      - --
      "I Hate Quotes" -- Samuel L. Clemens
    5. Re:They changed the state motto by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      I checked the I-95 tolls before I posted. There are two tolls in Delaware, and then three more in Maryland, though you have your choice between the tunnels, so you only have to pay two tolls total in MD.

      Then there is the Jersey Turnpike. Then the GWB. Basically that stretch is toll hell.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    6. Re:They changed the state motto by T3Tech · · Score: 1

      I was (wrongly) thinking that the toll booth belonged to Maryland.
      The giant toll money machine in Delaware is the Newark Toll Plaza across the mainline of I-95 (Delaware Turnpike) just inside the Maryland state line.

      Come to think of it I believe the plaza is NOT actually just inside Maryland as the above quote above from some article states, but is located within Delaware, being about a mile from the state line.

      The only reason I-95 in Delaware has a toll is because JFK and the Delaware Governor of the time didn't get along. Therefore the feds wouldn't pay for construction of 95 between exit 5 and MD state line. (Apparently a similar story for the stretch in Maryland). That is why 95 was allowed to have a toll in that area. Of course, the original highway bonds were paid off long ago. It's just one big cash cow for DelDOT now... - http://www.aaroads.com/delaware/i-095.htm

      But it can still all be blamed on Maryland... or Canada :)

      --
      Of course I didn't RTFA... why would I do that? You really are new here aren't you? Don't let my UID fool you.
    7. Re:They changed the state motto by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

      Here's how you beat the DE toll on I-95:

      Northbound: get off at Elkton Rd (Univ of DE), drive up to Otts' Chapel Rd, turn right, turn left onto Welsh Tract Rd., turn right on 896, then exit right onto 95N.

      Southbound: exit 95S at 1B, turn left onto Welsh Tract Rd., turn right onto Otts' Chapel Rd., turn left onto Elkton Rd, exit right onto 95S.

      You're welcome.

  26. Just don't buy them... by Thelasko · · Score: 1

    from Suzlon. Their turbines crack.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  27. lets put this into perspective by nimbius · · Score: 1, Interesting

    each blade is over 3 times larger than an 84 passenger schoolbus, and will be subjected to hurricanes. not to mention its *barely* visible from the local beach...so long as its packed to capacity and people are squinting past their sunscreen. sounds like a great plan!

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:lets put this into perspective by Socguy · · Score: 1

      from the article: "The poles are to extend 90 feet into the seafloor, and the units are to be constructed to withstand hurricane-force winds."
      When offshore oil derricks semi-regularly have 3 mile long icebergs bounce off them, I think a they can anchor a glorified flagpole to the ocean floor.

      As for visibility just think of a model: Tall but thin, turn 'em sideways and they seem to disappear.

  28. What about Cape Wind? by keithjr · · Score: 1

    How is this going to be the first, if Cape Wind is scheduled to be completed before it?

  29. Politics of Wind Power by lena_10326 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've listened to a lot of conservative talk radio and the one apparent constant is the negative attitude toward wind power. I don't get it.

    USA needs to be going full bore with wind power. So what if it only contributes a fraction of the power we need. Any additional source of power is good and worth it if the energy return is positive. Off-shore wind power strikes me as a great alternative to the concerns regarding land-based wind power. Concerns such as overcoming NIMBY resistance, ugly-ling up the landscape, discouraging tourism, etc.

    So, what's the deal with the politiking? When you face a problem, you attack that problem on all flanks, which for this problem means investing in all forms of safe, eco-friendly energy. Sometimes that means legislating enticing incentives and direct funding by the government for solutions which cannot immediately generate profits, but would over time if initially invested.

    F the politics.

    --
    Camping on quad since 1996.
    1. Re:Politics of Wind Power by sethstorm · · Score: 1

      I've listened to a lot of conservative talk radio and the one apparent constant is the negative attitude toward wind power. I don't get it. The irony is that all that hot air would be too much for the windfarm.
      --
      Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    2. Re:Politics of Wind Power by Paranatural · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, isn't the definition of conservative the 'safe and known'? Conservatives tend to be opposed to anything at all that's new, and will make mountains out of molehills at the slightest problems, generally speaking. More and more are understanding that we really have to get off of the oil teat, but it's slow going, as conservatives tend to also be deeply entrenched in big businesses (Especially oil companies). So basically it's principal, and because the environmentalists like it, so many conservatives will automatically hate it.

      Of course, these are generalizations, and, as I said, many are starting to come around to the more practical benefits of alternative energy sources, other than just better environmental practices.

    3. Re:Politics of Wind Power by spurdy · · Score: 1
      Can't we stop with the labeling, generalizing, and misrepresentation? Let's turn your paragraph around:

      "Well, isn't the definition of liberal the 'new and novel'? Liberals tend to be opposed to anything at all that's tried and true, and will make mountains out of molehills at the slightest problems, generally speaking."

      See how silly that is?

      And what does the "oil teat" have to do with the topic of electricity production? Petroleum accounted for only 1.6% of electric energy produced in 2006 (the latest full year available) www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epat1p1.html

      Conservatives are "entrenched" in big business? What are they, spies? Newsflash--all businesses tend to be predominantly conservative! So what? Business people aren't in business to lose money. When alternative energy sources become economically competitive, utilities will latch onto them in a heartbeat, regardless of their political viewpoint.

      And don't keep us in suspense: What are the "more practical benefits" of alternative energy sources, because it's sure not cost?

    4. Re:Politics of Wind Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats because wind power needs massive taxpayer paid subsidies. Nobody would complain if the power companies would finance the find farms themselves and sell the electricity at market prices.

      Thats not how it works however, first they demand subsidies to produce the plants and then subsidies for every kWh they produce. As a taxpayer I can't support that.

    5. Re:Politics of Wind Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason is that every anti-alternative fuel talking head you hear is one of two types of people.
       
      1] Money driven - They are either people who profit directly by keeping coal and oil energy producers' profits up, or who make their money supporting people who do that.
       
      2] Identity driven - they, like many of us, get their self esteem from feeling superior to other people and the people who they identify with are people in category number 1... they just take what the profit driven people say on face value and don't realize that they are just in it for the money and are selling their grandchildren down the drain.

    6. Re:Politics of Wind Power by lena_10326 · · Score: 1

      Thats because wind power needs massive taxpayer paid subsidies.
      As opposed to sending those "subsidies" to the Persian Gulf? :)

      No matter what, we're paying for the energy. We can either spend the money on windmills or spend it on $120 barrels of arab oil. Either way someone is getting subsidized.

      --
      Camping on quad since 1996.
    7. Re:Politics of Wind Power by lena_10326 · · Score: 1

      Well, isn't the definition of conservative the 'safe and known'? Conservatives tend to be opposed to anything at all that's new, and will make mountains out of molehills at the slightest problems, generally speaking
      I don't like to use that definition because it works in some cases (morality, taxes, law) but does not with others (war, environment, foreign trade).

      Also, every ideology makes mountains out of molehills because for them their issue at hand is the most important in the world.

      --
      Camping on quad since 1996.
    8. Re:Politics of Wind Power by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I would think that real conservatives would want to conserve our natural resources, and would probably be for wind power as it would stretch our supply of fossil fuels, a limited resource, further - which allows for us to keep using fossil fuels in areas where they aren't as easily replaced for as long as possible. I would also think that real conservatives would oppose things like drilling into the ANWR, in favor of keeping that resource around for a time when we really need it. Putting a resource like that "to good use now" instead of "saving it for a rainy day", to me, is the more liberal approach.

  30. Environmental Impact by m3j00 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Surely an offshore windfarm would reduce wind speeds on the shore behind it? It seems like this could turn a breezy summer day into an uncomfortably hot day given the right circumstances. Everyone considers wind power to be environmentally friendly by default. Has research been done about the effects it could have on weather and climate?

    1. Re:Environmental Impact by katch22 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've been saying the same thing for a long time. I'm pretty sure Mr. Newton got his laws right--IIRC, if we pull energy from the wind, doesn't that mean the wind has less energy? What are the long-term impacts upon the climate? No. Wait. Its not oil. It MUST be good for the environment.

    2. Re:Environmental Impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Won't planting tall trees, or short ones even, have the same effect? Farms plant trees around the fields to keep the wind off. It seems that a wind mill is better though since the trees are planted tightly together to stop all wind, while wind mills just catch some wind, but let most pass through. The actual surface area of the blades is pretty small in comparison to the area of the circle the blades make when rotating.

    3. Re:Environmental Impact by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The energy extracted compared to the total energy in the system is so small it becomes moot.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    4. Re:Environmental Impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would have to pile up a lot of wind turbines to make an effect. With only 3 blades, most of the wind passes by unaffected.

      If we really are concerned about loss of wind enery, maybe we should start cutting down the trees -- There is a lot of wind energy lost on moving all those leaves all around the planet! :-)

    5. Re:Environmental Impact by andyfreeze · · Score: 3, Funny

      Is that why they banned sail ships and replaced them with steam ships?

    6. Re:Environmental Impact by m3j00 · · Score: 1

      You would have to pile up a lot of wind turbines to make an effect.

      I think this is incorrect. A single wind turbine would make an effect, albeit negligible. It seems that the reasont he effect is negligible overall, is because the power contribution from wind energy in this country is negligible. Has there been any research in the countries that have invested heavily in wind power? I seem to recall the Netherlands getting 19% of the country's power from wind? It just seems unlikely that a wind farm capable of supplying a significant amount of power wouldn't also significantly affect wind patterns.
    7. Re:Environmental Impact by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Nope. Do the math. It doesn't matter how many turbines you have. The surface area of the turbine blades, no matter how many of them you have, will itself always be utterly negligible compared to a cross-sectional area of a column of air runs for whatever the diameter of the windfarm happens to be and reaches all the way to the top of the atmosphere.

    8. Re:Environmental Impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Boeing 747 generates over 60MW in flight, so think of this windfarm as a small fleet of 747s sitting off the coast thrusting against the wind. Can you imagine the commercial aircraft fleet making a measurable effect on the weather? I sure can't.

      dom

    9. Re:Environmental Impact by m3j00 · · Score: 1

      Well if you're going to cite math as the reason it's always "utterly negligible", then perhaps you should put forth some of this mystical math?

    10. Re:Environmental Impact by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      Take a turbine with 3 150' blades with an average chord of 3%. That yields a cross sectional area of 3,025 sq. ft. if you include a 200' mast.

      An average 10 story office building has a cross sectional area of around 11,000 sq. ft. So an office building has about 4 times more impact on "the environment" than a turbine. Do you see people wringing their hands about the effect of a 10 story building on atmospheric patterns?

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
  31. Good Question - Held up by fine MA politics by acomj · · Score: 1

    Despite Huge public backing Cape When faces huge regulatory hurdles from rich folks on the Cape.

    Massachusetts politics at its best, turning the state from a would be leader into a follower.

    Really really sad

    1. Re:Good Question - Held up by fine MA politics by keithjr · · Score: 1

      I just thought it was strange that Cape Wind wasn't even mentioned in either the summary or the article at all. Maybe if they did, it would bring attention to the stupidity taking place on the Cape based on the amount of support this wind farm is getting. Peer pressure, and such.

      We real MA residents don't particularly agree with the holdup for wind energy. Don't count us out yet.

  32. Nuclear power? by katch22 · · Score: 1

    The long-term effects of wind power have never been measured (to the best of my knowledge). We've used Nuclear power before, and we've taken huge steps in reducing the impact its waste has on the environment. If France, of all nations, can have a huge majority of its power supplied by nuclear reactors, why can't the U.S. follow suit?

    1. Re:Nuclear power? by biteableniles · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What could the long term affects be, other than those caused by the actual manufacturing of the turbine itself? Someone else on Slashdot, way back, suggested that if we wanted to see the affect of covering an entire continent with wind power generators, look at the affect the massive tree growth in Europe had on wind. The end result will be the same. That is to say, there won't be any problems. Wind power is just a strange form of Solar power. As long as there are temperature differentials between areas (caused by the sun) as well as other affects, there will be wind regardless of what we put in the way.

    2. Re:Nuclear power? by Goeland86 · · Score: 1

      I believe in part the US can't follow suit because investors keep thinking Hiroshima and Nagasaki or The Incredible Hulk when you meantion Nuclear. And don't forget the nutjobs who will claim it'll make the US an easier target for terrorists.

      No, the US won't follow suit because they're too afraid of nuclear stuff. Sure safety works, and the French have it all over the place, but lets face it: France is a fifth the size of Texas, even if it does hold twice the population of California. Hence nuclear power makes sense there because power transmission is done over shorter distances, and nuclear plants can generate the power necessary for dense areas. However in the US, population density is much lower, even in cities! And most power cables in the US could use an overhaul or two, because you lose so much power conveying the energy that it would just not be beneficial on the current infrastructure (har, pun!).

      And why do you say "If France, of all nations"? The French DISCOVERED radioactivity (Marie Currie ring any bells?). French scientists and statisticians are also among the best in the world. The rest of the industry lacks the interest in capitalizing on the science, but their scientists are top notch.

      --
      ---- I am certain of only one thing : I know nothing else.
    3. Re:Nuclear power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      France is not a fifth the size of texas. France is 210K sq mi, Texas is 270K sq mi.

      The US will follow suite sooner or later, necessity being the mother of... something or another.

  33. Delaware by He-Ja · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Delaware, first to ratificate the constitution, first to have an US offshore wind power park.

    What a briljant state!

    1. Re:Delaware by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

      Frankly, it's probably the best possibility for a Libertarian state in the union.. NH is being ruined by Massholes demanding government services, and AK is just too rich an oil target... DE IIRC still has less than 1m people, and in theory if a large enough influx of libertarians would come here and vote, interesting things would result..

      (and yes, I'm a refugee from NY. Believe it or not, there's more tech work here per capita than you'd think... Most of it legitimate!)

  34. Just make d*mned sure... by Illbay · · Score: 1

    ...it's not anywhere close to where a member of the Kennedy clan can see it.

    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
  35. But they're not ALL powerful... by Illbay · · Score: 1
    Delaware is a plot between the banking industry and the DuPonts to get a few free Senators.


    ...They were only able to snag two of them.

    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
  36. What about combining technologies by aplusjimages · · Score: 1

    What if they equipped the blades with some solar powered panels? Get a little extra juice.

    --
    Can I bum a sig?
  37. Why not use the ocean currents... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to generate electricity instead of the unpredictable wind?

  38. Transparent when warm? by camperdave · · Score: 1

    From the shore, the park will be visible only on clear winter days, and the turbines will be nearly invisible during summer months when Rehoboth Beach fills with vacationers.

    Are these things made out of some sort of thermotransparent material, nearly clear when warm, but becoming somewhat opaque in colder weather? Or are they planning on hauling the wind farm out to sea, and over the horizon during the tourist season?

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Transparent when warm? by confused+one · · Score: 2, Informative

      during the summer there is more water vapor in the air and the resulting haze limits the distance you can see.

    2. Re:Transparent when warm? by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      You "clearly" (pun) have never been to the east coast in summer. (see below post.)

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  39. Obligatory wind map... by lpangelrob · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...here. For the main page, google "wind map [state]". The area where the turbines will be built ranks good-to-excellent.

    It's interesting to note that most of the wind maps agree that offshore is the best place to stick a wind turbine. If you've ever stood by the ocean, there's always a stiff sea breeze coming from the ocean onto the land.

    1. Re:Obligatory wind map... by m3j00 · · Score: 1

      If you've ever stood by the ocean, there's always a stiff sea breeze coming from the ocean onto the land.

      And that stiff breeze is wasted on undeserving beach goers and coastal residences. It should be harvested and used for a truly noble cause: powering televisions and microwaves.
    2. Re:Obligatory wind map... by sallgeud · · Score: 1

      http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/wind_maps.asp -- for a map of the whole USA with coastal stats.

      Looks like one of the absolute best places for off-shore wind is norCal & oregon. But the upper east coast is a close second... beating out any land wind resource.

  40. Deleware's power is incompatible with other states by seanonymous · · Score: 2, Funny

    They're on the metric system, so clearly they're not going to be able to interface with the rest of country, as we all use foot-volts and hertz per yard.

  41. Stupid Capacity Statements by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    The wind farm will power 50,000 homes in Delaware, using about half of its capacity.

    And I like half of you half as much as you deserve.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  42. Why do people object to these? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The article talks about the wind farm being so far offshore that you can't see it, as if this is a good thing. Why do people not like to look at wind turbines 1 mile out? I can understand not wanting one over your head, but why don't people who own real estate nearby think they look cool, not just intrinsically but also for what they represent?

    Honestly, we need some hard-headed leadership that will literally jam through as many alternative energy solutions as possible, even if they are only close to being cost effective. By diversifying our energy resources we will lower the overall cost. Part of the reason oil is so high is because the market is so nervous about a disruption.

    Every time you look at a windmill, if you are so lucky to own some nice coastal real estate with one in sight in the future, please think about the lives saved, think about the money not going to corrupt governments, think about how much you're helping the planet. Maybe then you will protest to HAVE them in your sight, instead of not. They are beautiful.

  43. Case in Point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    You can cross the bridges into New Jersey for free, but you have to pay to get back out.

    1. Re:Case in Point... by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      You can cross the bridges into New Jersey for free, but you have to pay to get back out.

      That is true for all the brides going into NJ. New Jersey, free to get in. You got to pay to get out.
    2. Re:Case in Point... by ShadowBlasko · · Score: 1

      Negative. There are a few points where you can get out of NJ without paying.

      I suggest crossing the Delaware at New Hope.

      Small bridge, great town, and free to cross into PA

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order- Ed Howdershelt Via Tass
  44. Hurricane force Winds? by HippySlacker · · Score: 1

    "the units are to be constructed to withstand hurricane-force winds. " Being a Floridian, I have to ask what wind speeds these turbines will be constructed to withstand. As we all know, there are 5 classes of hurricanes. Would these survive and installation in the Gulf?

  45. I'm from Delaware! by Prien715 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I grew up there (and now live in Houston -- from a job I got on Slashdot no less).

    Rehobeth is a beautiful area -- Delaware's #1 industry is tourism believe-it-or-not -- and it's just plain smart of them not to have them visible. Since the state is geologically a sand bar, the beaches are extremely nice and it's not a huge tourist hotspot like Florida or Jersey. They've got a decent sized park nearby (Cape Henlopen) where you can walk from forest to beach and take a dip if you want without all those pesky tourists.

    Just reminds me of driving home from my last job and having a reasonably priced pint at Arena's.

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
  46. Weather System Impacts anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Has anyone considered the impact on the weather system? A windfarm pulls energy out of the wind (by definition), so that energy is not there to carry things like rain.

    If you put one off-shore won't that impact on the rainfall inland (or at least down-wind) of the windfarm?

  47. Um... Yeah... Think of the Birds by numbsafari · · Score: 0

    The area where this is being built is one of the most important migratory bird routes on the East Coast... So, this is actually a pretty serious thing to have going up.

    Seriously people... why not just go Nuclear? DE could build two plants and probably have enough electricity left over to become a net energy exporter to the surrounding states.

  48. Easy.... by Belial6 · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's easy to beat. I had a girlfriend once. Of course, you wouldn't know her. She moved in Canada.

    1. Re:Easy.... by Temtongkek · · Score: 1

      You you.. h.h.haa...haad had a ggg g girlfriend?? w..w.w.w.wwwiiwiw with... BOOBS??

    2. Re:Easy.... by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

      I'm from Canada and I'm dating your girlfriend now. She says I've got you all beat because I can play hockey.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    3. Re:Easy.... by Temtongkek · · Score: 1

      I think you meant "She says I'm beating off because I love my pocket hockey." Or, maybe I misheard... Either way, I'm going back to sleep. Screw this conciousness shit.

  49. Corrosion? by fragMasterFlash · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can anyone enlighten me as to how offshore platforms such as in TFA will be able to withstand such a corrosive environment while remaining cost effective?

    1. Re:Corrosion? by chifut · · Score: 0

      Use POR-15 paint or similar for non-moving parts. Proper greasing for the moving parts. You gotta start somewhere, time will tell what other problems could arise.

    2. Re:Corrosion? by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      Lots of paint, and corrosion resistant techniques (used by the oil industry on their platforms).

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    3. Re:Corrosion? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      By putting them high up on a 250 foot pole, the wind turbine itself ought to be well protected from the salt water. Of course, the pylon itself as well as the electrical lines will have to go in the water, but we're already got lots of experience doing that, so I would suspect if they build these right there should be relatively few surprises.

  50. Bad news for parachuters by chifut · · Score: 0

    First it was power lines, now this.. If you don't get barbecued on a high voltage power line, you could end up chopped up by turbine blades.. Nice :)

    1. Re:Bad news for parachuters by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      I guess a guy with your level of insight loves to skydive miles from shore.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    2. Re:Bad news for parachuters by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I didn't realise parachuting into the sea was such a popular sport.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  51. Half the PEAK capacity by mangu · · Score: 1

    The peak capacity of a wind farm is probably several times the average you can get from it. Besides, you have to use it when it blows, you cannot store wind.


    In hydroelectric power stations the peak capacity is usually twice the average power. You can deliver more power in the 6~10 pm hours when consumption is higher and store water from midnight to 6 am when consumption is lower. You don't have this option with wind power, therefore wind can never be your main energy source.

  52. Teddy couldn't stop this one or didn't want to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good ole Teddy K couldn't stop this project it looks like. I hope it works out and they go back to MASS. and put one there.

  53. Well done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congratulations to the OP on pulling in so many suckers.

    Congratulations also to those suckers who so patiently and painstakingly explained to the OP where he was going wrong.

  54. Indeed! by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hear hear!

    I've often wondered what the objection is as well. --Having seen acres of white windmills, I can honestly say I was filled with pride at the sight. They were actually quite beautiful from an aesthetic standpoint. Without making any judgments about other forms of power generation, compare the simple aesthetics of wind power to the gray cooling towers associated with nuclear power, or the toxic smokestacks from coal burning plants.

    I think the complaints are almost more grudging responses to the implication that we have been in some ways irresponsible and dirty as a culture with respect to our approach to power generation. Because people don't like to feel guilty, they choose instead to sneer at and complain about alternative solutions. --Or perhaps they are squeamish about things they register as being, "Touchey-Feeley", (like a grade school kid being afraid of cooties. "Caring about the environment is GAAAAAY! EEEWWW!"), and so they react in the same way.

    Don't laugh. I know far too many grown men who are emotionally still stuck in Jr. High. While this kind of behavior is more prevalent among geeks than the gen pop, there appears to be a counter-balance in effect; that is, some of the most enlightened people I've ever met are also geeks, and their enlightenment derives exactly through geekdom. Geeks are extremists.


    -FL

  55. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  56. Re:Ocean view ... have you seen them fail by pbhj · · Score: 1

    I do find it weird that they'd be building these out in the Ocean so that people can't see them. They're not unsightly, and the increased initial cost and access costs for maintenance seems counter productive. Ah well. It's a step in the right direction anyways. I think that such wind turbines look rather majestic, but then I like pylons too.

    One reason to site of shore, land costs; second, failed blades are less likely to cut people in half.

  57. Invisible spinning blades!? by elodoth · · Score: 1

    "the turbines will be nearly invisible during summer months when Rehoboth Beach fills with vacationers"
     
    I know they are way up in the air, but invisible spinning blades never really sounds like a good idea to me...

  58. I guess the Kennedys don't have a compound there. by Hasai · · Score: 1

    Otherwise, you'd have been SOL, Delaware.

    http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/17/90822.shtml

    Pack of billionaire hypocrites, the lot of them.
    >:P

    --

    Regards;

    Hasai

  59. Wind Turbine Failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Search YouTube for "Wind Turbine Failure". The video I saw was spectacular, but I can't remember the exact name.