Texas Tells Cape Wind "You're Not First Yet"

longacre writes "Cape Wind is making headlines for being the first offshore wind farm to earn federal approval, but it still has plenty of legal hoops to jump through before groundbreaking. Texas, on the other hand, requires no review — state, federal, or otherwise — to build wind farms off its shore. Texas energy expert and Popular Mechanics senior editor Jennifer Bogo talks to Texan energy leaders who are confident they will beat Cape Wind to the punch for the distinction of having the first functional US offshore wind farm. 'I was about to write a press release to congratulate Cape Wind for getting their approval,' says Jim Suydam, press secretary of the Texas General Land Office, 'and let them know when they're done jumping through hoops up there they can come build off the Texas Coast.' Despite its reputation as an oil-addicted, non-environmentally-friendly, conservative state, Texas's existing land-based wind farms actually produce four times more electricity than California's."

Comments

Smart move

[Mabbo]

Texas understands a simple principle: oil isn't forever. They have the money now, and can invest in wind, and other alternatives, so that when it runs out, they have another source of income, and a backup energy supply. Dubai is trying for a similar move, building what they hope is the Middle East's Singapore, but may have overdone it a tad.

Living in the UK for the last year, I've seen a lots of investment in wind here. On the horizon here in Edinburgh, there's a pretty substantial wind farm. Flying back home I noticed there's another large one in the waters between Ireland and Wales.

Re:Smart move

[twisteddk]

Knowing how windmills (and in particular windfarms) work, I wonder how Texans have solved the issue of overproduction ? I mean any sucker can buy a few hundred windmills from Vestas. But this type of energy is not "on demand" capable, like nuclear, coal og oil based electrical production is. Even hydropower can be scaled and "stored" up to a point.
When you get a huge terrawatt windfarm, you NEED to be able to harness (and use) all of that energy, even at night, and that means either inefficient storage, or you have to close down on other production facilities. And that costs money too.

Yes, by NOT burning oil for electricity we're keeping a green carbon footprint, but the plants producing the power still needs manning, and shutdown/startup isn't exactly easy (or cheap) in many cases. In my own home I can hook up a couple of batteries, but I suspect it's a lot more difficult on this large a scale. Anyone have a clue ? Or is this just another political move ?

Re:Smart move

[mystik]

They can, however, fail in fairly spectacular ways:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqEccgR0q-o

Re:Smart move

[SpryGuy]

Dunno about sheep, but wind-farms DO kill bats. The blades attract them, and the pressure difference as they fly by can pop their lungs. And Texas is a big state for bat colonies, so it's been a real problem in some areas.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/08/25/wind-turbine-bats.html

Re:Smart move

[jedidiah]

...oddly enough the ranchers in West Texas don't seem to mind the big turbines either.

They don't kill livestock and they generate income.

It's hard to argue against a paycheck.

The "cowboy mentality" in Texas means that there will be less red tape involved
in all of this and that any deployments are for purely economic reasons. The whole
thing will at least seem to make practical sense for all involved.

It won't be some do-gooder crusade bogged down by people that thing government should by your nanny.

Re:Smart move

[Reziac]

This is hilarious, considering that the domestic turkey and the wild turkey, considered one of the wiliest and most difficult to bag of all game birds, are the SAME SPECIES. But if you catch some wild turkeys and feed them for a while, they'll act the same as domestic ones.

The difference seems to be whether they're used to being fed and protected, or are used to having to scrounge their own dinner and avoid predators on their own. Birds are very reactive, and if there's nothing to react to, they simply DON'T.

And it's not just turkeys. I've seen wild-born Canadian geese (another wily bird, as they go) become downright stupid (and impossible to drive off) once they discovered safety and a free lunch in a farmer's barnyard -- and these were mature geese, not youngsters or hatchlings.

Turkeys aren't so much stupid as intensely curious, to the exclusion of all common sense, and EXTREMELY trusting if they're not accustomed to avoiding hazards. Frex, if you show 'em a hose, they'll stick their beak up it, trying to see where the water comes from (then are perplexed that they can't breathe through it). And they'll follow around anyone who feeds 'em or even scratches their necks, cooing "I wuv 'oo" at 'em, with total trust.

As you say, it does make them good domestic livestock, easy to get along with and keep unstressed right up to slaugher.

[I think one could draw a parallel here, on one side the frontiersman, and on the other the city slicker. ;) ]

Re:Yeeeeeehaw!

[quokkaZ]

Talk about jumping to wild conclusions based on next to no evidence, but firmly ensconced in ideological clap trap.

There are innumerable examples of governments "making things". As we are talking about electricity generation I will point out the Snowy Mountains Hydro Electric Scheme in Australia, built by the Australian government and operated to this day by a wholly government owned corporation. It is the largest engineering project ever undertaken in Australia and frequently cited as an example of civil engineering excellence.

In scope and difficulty, putting up some wind turbines is just not in the same league.

So what is it you were saying about governments?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowy_Mountains_Scheme#cite_note-ASCE-6