US To Fire Up Big Offshore Wind Energy Projects

coondoggie writes "The US government today took a bold step toward perhaps finally getting some offshore wind energy development going with $50 million in investment money and the promise of renewed effort to develop the energy source. The plan focuses on overcoming three key challenges (PDF) that have made offshore wind energy practically non-existent in the US: the relatively high cost of offshore wind energy; technical challenges surrounding installation, operations, and grid interconnection; and the lack of site data and experience with project permitting processes."

Comments

Only three problems?

[14erCleaner]

What about local opposition? The Martha's Vineyard wind farm faced a regular nor'easter of NIMBYism.

Re:Most folks don't want an energy source nearby

[TheSHAD0W]

1) windmills don't explode. Certainly not in a fashion that cause people's shadows to be burned into concrete like the atomic bombs dropped on Japan.

Nuclear reactors don't explode, unless they're made of graphite and mismanaged to the point where hydrogen gas builds up and goes poof. They've never caused people's shadows to be burned into concrete, and never will; you can't make 'em go supercritical.

2) and 3): I do agree with you there, but windmills are a really expensive way to generate power, and those generators are difficult enough to keep operating without exposing them to salt water spray.

Why not stick a nuclear reactor out there instead of a windmill? It wouldn't be visible from shore, wouldn't even need a cooling tower since you could use the sea water as a heat sink, and would be far enough out to reduce any chance of radiation leakage hitting the short to a minimum.

Re:So reliable

[bunratty]

That's why we're developing grid energy storage.

Re:A legitimate waste of dollars

[afidel]

The best spots for sustained winds are offshore (including in the great lakes), this is how you get better than 60% utilization, by putting them where the wind is consistent.