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."

30 of 679 comments (clear)

  1. There's wind in them thar.... oceans? by Hoyty1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So when can I purchase my chunk of the ocean to erect my power plant?

    --
    My Comic : www.ourbadidea.com
    Blame the artist for all mistakes!
    1. Re:There's wind in them thar.... oceans? by nschubach · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm sure there are laws about international waters, but does the closest state own the rights to waters offshore? Could they issue "property taxes" to windmills offshore? And how to they determine who has first dibs to build things at sea?

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    2. Re:There's wind in them thar.... oceans? by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Not only that...I'd hope we'd NOT try to put all our country's energy eggs in this one basket.

      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.........
    3. Re:There's wind in them thar.... oceans? by johnsonav · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm sure there are laws about international waters, but does the closest state own the rights to waters offshore?

      Yep, they're called Territorial Waters. And a country's Exclusive Economic Zone ends 200 nautical miles from shore (with some exceptions).

      --
      ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
    4. Re:There's wind in them thar.... oceans? by tripdizzle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hopefully our politicians are as forward thinking as you. One of the reasons we need to do this is so that we can save our fossil fuels for when they are absolutely necessary. I don't think we will ever be able to run a tank or a fighter jet off of electricity alone.

      --
      "A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
    5. Re:There's wind in them thar.... oceans? by INeededALogin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:There's wind in them thar.... oceans? by anagama · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    7. Re:There's wind in them thar.... oceans? by Cube+Steak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You mean like how we've seen all those terrorist attacks on our outshore oil drilling platforms? Oh wait...

    8. Re:There's wind in them thar.... oceans? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:There's wind in them thar.... oceans? by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!
    10. Re:There's wind in them thar.... oceans? by buswolley · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I want to hear a little about whether mass tapping of wind power would alter climate by sapping winds of their energy?

      No flames or trolls please, just a straight forward question.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    11. Re:There's wind in them thar.... oceans? by Gibbs-Duhem · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, but the effect is not readily noticeable. Around very large wind farms they seem temperature increases of ~1C due to the air not circulating as well as in the surrounding area. This is equivalent to the effect of a city on the local climate.

      As far as removing energy from the overall climate, the scales are not even close to what would seem to cause a problem (although who knows, right?). Plus, global warming is injecting lots of energy into the weather system right now... so at least the change is in a good direction.

    12. Re:There's wind in them thar.... oceans? by snowraver1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      global warming is injecting lots of energy into the weather system right now...

      What about the actual act of generating electricity/energy. All of the waste goes to heat. The Earth's electrical generation capacity is currently a little more than 3.5 TW. Imagine 3 billion space heaters. That's a lot of heat. Include waste heat in the generation process (which according to National Geograhic last month appx 2 units of electricity are lost for every unit delivered) and you have ~10TW of heat FROM ELECTRICITY ALONE. Include planes, trains and automobiles, and you might get an idea on how much heat humans contribute to the earth.

      I wonder if that has a noticeable impact on the Earth's climate. I really don't know, but noone ever talks about this in the climate change models. Just like water vapor gets overlooked so often.

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    13. Re:There's wind in them thar.... oceans? by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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 /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  2. Floating Cities by Anenome · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I would love to see a future where rich libertarians build floating cities free of the governmental restraints and constraints of the pandering politicians. Live free on the water! No taxes. Everything accomplished by contract. It's like a paradise *sigh*

    --
    "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
  3. Re:Makes me wonder about cabling by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  4. About birds. by Facegarden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
  5. The maps are interesting by jbeaupre · · Score: 5, Interesting
    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  6. Re:Maybe we should test it first? by lupine · · Score: 5, Informative

    We don't need to send power from the coast to Kansas. Coastal areas are heavily populated and so the power will not need to travel very far to be used effectively. Kansas is a windy place, they will have their own land-based turbines.

    These wind farms would not be in international waters. They would be on the continental shelf which are by definition national waters. We already patrol and scan these areas for evil dooers.

    Electrical cables for wind farms would be more distributed and harder to disrupt than the current system of power plants.

  7. Re:Great Idea! by Captain+Hook · · Score: 4, Funny

    What, you mean like the million dollar oil rigs which get placed in all sorts of extreme situations?

    --
    These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
  8. Re:Makes me wonder about cabling by ptbarnett · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Makes me wonder about cabling by Korin43 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Considering how uncommon it is for anything serious to go wrong in a nuclear power plant, I don't see how this is a hard choice.

  10. Re:Makes me wonder about cabling by WCguru42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Nuclear power stations, which cause cancer when they go wrong.

    The biggest problem with the 3-mile Island incident is that it was only a partial meltdown and not a complete meltdown. Because if it had completely melted down then there would be an example of just how good our containment is (suffice to say, it would not have ended up like Chernobyl). Oh well, I guess we'll just have to keep living in a world where people fear what isn't going to happen.

    --
    "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
  11. Re:Makes me wonder about cabling by QuantumRiff · · Score: 4, Informative

    Every undersea fiber cable has repeater boxes built into the cable every X miles to regenerate the signal. They are powered by electrical cables embedded in the line. Every undersea fiber cut also technically cuts a power line. Not to mention, the technology is pretty darn easy. You should have a GFCI outlet near your sinks and in your bathroom. They keep you from dying when you drop the blow dryer in the tub...

    --

    What are we going to do tonight Brain?
  12. None of you brought this up. by Samschnooks · · Score: 4, Funny

    With ALL those windmills going, taking the energy out of the wind, eventually, there won't be any more wind. See, the wind hits one set of windmills and slows down; then hits another and slows down further until eventually, no more wind! Then we'll have to set up windmills in the Middle East and we'll be right back to where we are today! It COULD happen!

  13. Re:Makes me wonder about cabling by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 5, Informative

    Water is not conductive.

    Salt water is.

  14. Re:Makes me wonder about cabling by hrvatska · · Score: 5, Informative

    Despite the objection of Kennedy the Cape Cod wind farm is moving forward.

  15. Re:Unexpected impact? by rev_sanchez · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't consider this a bad thing...

    What about when it slows down the earth to the point of being tidally locked with the sun, and you're stuck on the day side?

    Then we use solar power on the sunny side to turn the windmills into fans.

    --
    If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
  16. The truth about bird kills (not what you expect) by sampson7 · · Score: 4, Informative
    The original poster is simply incorrect that turbines pose a negligible threat to birds (and to bats, which potentially is just as serious a problem). Bird kills are very real and have to be managed just like any other environmental cost. The key to acceptable bird/bat kills is: (1) proper siting of the facility; and (2) proper operations of the facility.

    Nobody in the industry takes a cavelier attitude towards bird and bat kills. The Altamont Wind Project and it's well-documented bird problems probably set this industry back 10 years. It was an example of a very poorly sited facility. From Wikipedia:

    Considered largely obsolete, these numerous small turbines are being gradually replaced with much larger and more cost-effective units. The small turbines are dangerous to various raptors that hunt California Ground Squirrels in the area. 1300 raptors are killed annually. Among them are 70 golden eagles that are federally protected. In total, 4700 birds are killed annually.[2] The larger units turn more slowly and, being elevated higher, are less hazardous to the local wildlife.

    This idea that we in the industry discount bird and bat issues is false. The American Wind Energy Association, the leading trade association for wind developers, has sponsored a number of studies of the issue. This 132 page report from 2004 is just one resource discussing recent research: www.awea.org/pubs/documents/WEBBProceedings9.14.04%5BFinal%5D.pdf . This report from the American Academy of Science's presents a similarly scientific look at bird and bat fatalities: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11935&page=1. The Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative (http://www.batsandwind.org/default.asp) has fascinating video of bats encountering turbines:http://www.bu.edu/cecb/wind/video/, and has detailed discussions of proper siting and operation of facilities.

    The better operations come in two ways -- (1) shut down the turbines during local migratory and breeding seasons; and (2) shut the turbines down at night when bat activity is at a maximum and power prices are at a minimum. By combining these two operating parameters, the bird and bat kills can be reduced to an acceptable level, while revenues to the wind mills decrease only slightly. This is particularly true since electricity demand is at its lowest during the spring and fall -- when animals are most likely to come into contact with the turbines. It's common for fossil units to shut down during this period for maintenance too, because the revenues do not justify the costs.

    As usual, things are rarely as simple as we would wish. Generating power is not environmentally friendly. It just isn't. It's all about minimizing the bad parts.

  17. Re:Solution to the wrong problem by gatkinso · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.