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."
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.
According to TFA there are also tourists.
But that only begs the question...who would go to Delaware for a vacation?
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.
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.
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.
$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.
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.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
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.
Furthermore, this is only half the capacity. In theory they can sell their surplus to other utility companies.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-Rob
Biblical fiscal responsibility
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.
That's easy to beat. I had a girlfriend once. Of course, you wouldn't know her. She moved in Canada.