Slashdot Mirror
Offshore Windpower To Potentially Exceed US Demand
SpuriousLogic writes to mention that a new Interior Department report suggests that wind turbines off US coastlines could supply enough electricity to meet, or exceed, the nation's current demand. While a good portion of this is easily accessible through shallow water sites, the majority of strong wind resources appear to be in deep water which represents a significant technological hurdle. "Salazar told attendees at the 25x'25 Summit in Virginia, a gathering of agriculture and energy representatives exploring ways to cut carbon dioxide emissions, that "we are only beginning to tap the potential" of offshore renewable energy. The report is a step in the Obama administration's mission to chart a course for offshore energy development, an issue that gained urgency last year amid high oil prices and chants of 'Drill, baby, drill' at the Republican National Convention."
talk about single point of failure. If another country (or terrorist) wanted to seriously hurt the US, they'd just have to target a broad swath of these offshore windmills. A pretty easy target I'd think?
Much like computer systems...I'd like to see a heterogeneous solution....windmills, nukes...and perhaps some legacy fossil fuel plants and a backup.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
And here, the parent illustrates why this will never happen.
Years and years in environmental impact studies, many more years of court battles, then the legislatures and Congress stepping in to support the NIMBY positions of their constituents.
To make this happen, Barry will have to wield near dictatorial powers and sweep aside most of the legal avenues people have to fight against something like this if they disagree.
Hmmm...Barry? Dictatorial powers?
Maybe we will have wind farms after all.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Just to cut off this dead birds argument before it starts... I know a guy that runs some wind farms in Cali here (the livermore ones) and as a test they decided to shut off one half of their farm for a month and see the difference in birds killed.
They found like 4 dead birds in the field where they were off and around 8 dead birds where they were on. So each half of the farm might kill an extra 4 birds a month versus having standing towers. That's 96 birds a year for a very large windfarm.
You know what kills WAY more birds than that per year? Housecats. Example quote from some government study in the UK:
"In 1990, researchers estimated that "outdoor" house cats and feral cats were responsible for killing nearly 78 million small mammals and birds annually in the United Kingdom."
full link: http://library.fws.gov/Bird_Publications/songbrd.html
My mom's house also has a large window that kills a few birds a year, I'm sure for every house and building that adds up.
Point being, winds farms have effectively NO impact on birds! Thanks
-Taylor
Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
Years and years in environmental impact studies, many more years of court battles, then the legislatures and Congress stepping in to support the NIMBY positions of their constituents.
No, you just need a powerful Senator:
Kennedy doesn't play by the rules
Short version: a proposed wind farm off Cape Cod was torpedoed by Kennedy with a poison-pill amendment to a bill. It wasn't just his constituent's backyard: it was his backyard.
If another country (or terrorist) wanted to seriously hurt the US, they'd just have to target a broad swath of these offshore windmills. A pretty easy target I'd think?
This is a pretty weak argument when you consider that we have the Coast Guard, the largest Navy in the world, and the most advanced monitoring of our coasts. Not to mention the sheer size of the United States and the fact that these windmills could be deployed on two different oceans. We are not talking 100 Windmills here. Also, I am sure the military will find a way to make these Windmills useful to our national defense. I doubt missiles, but those poor whales are probably gonna have more sonar pollution.
Terrorist FUD. Google up maps of oil, gasoline, and NG pipelines. Small bombs, big boom, no energy, no economy, no transportation, no food once the supermarkets run dry.
With Windmills, terrorism would be harder to perform and easier to fix. Either you have to attack thousands of windmills over hundreds of square miles, or the trunk lines transporting power. I suspect it is much easier to put out the fires associated with blowing up an electrical line than it is for pipelines, and much easier to lay cable than pipe. Plus, with electricity, the "pipe" fills immediately -- with liquids and gasses, even once repaired, flow is much slower. Oh, and undersea cables are much harder to get to than pipes running on or close to the surface of the ground, i.e., no fancy submersible required -- a 4wd Subaru Wagon would be about all you need to get bomb materials to pipelines. And some shovels perhaps.
Anyway, the last 8 years of terrorism talk seem to have you unduly paranoid. A terrorist could totally cripple the US right now by targeting pipelines.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
You mean like how we've seen all those terrorist attacks on our outshore oil drilling platforms? Oh wait...
Exactly, these windmills will be far apart and designed to withstand hurricanes and swells in the deep ocean. It would take a lot of work and sizable force to disable a significant number without being noticed.
Of course, these offshore windmills mustn't be within eyesight of any rich people's homes...
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-liwind1221,0,5450016.story
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
1970 called, they want there Nuclear complaints back.
"he waste precipitates are extremely toxic with no safe disposal options"
Actually the plants like LFR produce little waste and the wast they do ahve has a half life of about 90 years. Meaning in 200 years it is at background radiation level.
Yes, it is toxic, but then so is coal. And we can manage something like 200 years.
"there is virtually unrivaled and potential for large scale disaster to occur, "
You mean besides a coal fire?
"power output per plant is so massive that trying claim it will decentralize energy production is laughable, "
I don't even know what you are saying there.
"and every dollar we sink into it is another dollar we won't be putting into more long-term solutions with lower associated risks."
and that makes no sense. No one is saying Nuclear is the only way to go, but right now it is a very good way t go. It gives us breathing room while we continue to roll out things like Industrial SOlar Thermal.
That is a long term solution. BUt it will take a complete rewiring of the grid to get that power to soome places in the US.
"I'm also wondering how a large number of autonomously operating off-shore wind farms can possibly be considered an "easy target" for terrorist attack... do you have any idea just how much coastline the US has?"
they don't do well in hurricanes, tornadoes, and typhoons. Plus there will need to be a lot of underwater cabling..a whole lot. Which have it's own toxic disadvantages.
Do you realize the cost to maintain those thing? the cost to bring out new blades? Off shore wind is not practical on a large scale.
Wind power for alrge scale will be freaking expensive.
Solar Thermal is the long term solution. Seriously cost effective, easy to maintain, and the cost goes down.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Jesus Christ it isn't perfect, it is just clean energy that is there for the taking.
So let's take it.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.