Slashdot Mirror
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."
The original headline is much better.
It reflects reality. Not cheer leading.
50 million isn't a big enough subsidy for anything 'big' that is this uneconomical.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
In a few short years (if not already) there won't be enough petroleum to go around regardless of how much drilling (off shore or onshore) you want to do. It's time to be preparing for that day.
(looks both ways, feeds troll)
Screw drilling. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but big oil is not so concerned about proceedure as they are about profit, which is exactly why Shell had deep water horizon explode like that. Moreover, it was not a singular incident. The federal investigation found systemic wrongdoing in many offshore drilling projects.
What I want to see, is land-based wind generation in areas suited to it. My home state could power at least 3 others if this were to come to fruition.
It is absolutely disgusting that people can build a new skyscraper in New York without any 'Environmental impact studies" on migratory birds, but somehow it becomes so very relevent as soon as we are talking about non-poluting power generation structures.
What about local opposition? The Martha's Vineyard wind farm faced a regular nor'easter of NIMBYism.
Have you read my blog lately?
Since Ted Kennedy is gone, may they'll put it up there.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
"the relatively high cost of offshore wind energy;"
think about this for a moment. what would have happened if they had decided it cost too much to put lasers on sharks?
we wouldn't have any shark based lasers then would we? and then Hitler would have won World War I, and we'd all be speaking Japanese.
They flip out when someone says, "Hey, let's just build a little Hiroshima or Nagasaki right across from your backyard!"
The Kennedy Clan gets their drawer in an uproar, when anyone suggests that they build windmills anywhere near their property on Cape Cpd.
So, sadly, switching to alternative energy sources is not a technological problem, but a political one.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
$50 million from the government because there is no profit potential in private industry. Like every other green energy initiative. Remember Carter? This one too will fail. Wind is less than 1% as efficient as coal. You can't change physics. The government will take the hard earned money of young families anyway, mal-invest it, and divert it to cronies like Jeff Immelt at GE. A sick con where there is no accountability. How ironic when there is an amazing revolution going on in natural gas extraction from shale in the US. The eco-left has found reason to hate it too.
an ill wind that blows no good
I thought the whole point of wind was that you didn't have to fire anything up.
$50 million is not quite enough to cover the bureaucracy necessary to manage the effort....
"It should cover the costs of determining what impact it will have on the local wolf population. That's a common method used by the tree-huggers to slow down road work around here, where we have an active population of 0 wolves."
Well, when the government is handing out almost $1 Billion US in subsides to the "Biofuel" industry to build wood-chip converting plants in, of all places, Texas, maybe it is a good idea to diversify. Oil too expensive? Fall back on nearly-free lumber resources, and burn it in our SUVs, all at great profit to those that do the refining. The lumber industry has long been feeding from the public trough, consuming vast tracts of forest that they pay pennies for, selling us back our own resources, and this is just an extension of that free-loading.
Wind sounds far more attractive to me, not only as a consumer, but as a part OWNER of these forests. I'd rather see our subsides pay for something other then lining the pockets of biofuel-plant-building contractors that are building a pipe-dream designed to pillage our public lands (they make their money regardless of whether or not the technology is sustainable--that might just be the whole idea).
The Google offshore project will only generate 6,000 MW. That's merely the equivalent of 5 time-traveling DeLoreans!
They're called pebble bed reactors. These are what we should be building. They are self-moderating without active control systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
That said, it should still be noted that even conventional water-cooled reactors don't explode in a fashion that cause people's shadows to be burned into concrete like the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. Spreading that kind of image is irresponsible. Nuclear power has legitimate risks, and those are what should be discussed.
Meanwhile, individual windmills may or may not be aesthetic, according to one's sensibilities, but it's a hard argument that gigantic collections of them don't visually and sonically degrade open spaces and natural surroundings. Individual snowmobiles or speedboats may be graceful and beautiful, but put a few hundred of them together in a formerly serene place and their grace and beauty evaporate.
Windmills additionally kill lots of birds, including raptors and threatened species, and they do that continuously. They also have high rates of mechanical failure, and require expensive on-site maintenance. Worst of all, because of the uneven nature of their generation, they cannot replace baseline power stations, which limits them to marginal contributions above the peak demand curve. As more wind power comes on line, utilities are constructing natural gas plants to provide backup peak reserve, lest wind not be available at the moment needed. In other words, not only is wind power expensive on its own, but it often requires additional expenditure for backup generation.
I don't see how one must be rich and powerful to dislike the impact of large scale wind power. There are uses and places for it, but its shortcomings are hard to dismiss when considering large-scale application. What I see are decisions and allocations being made on the basis of political, rather than engineering, analyses. That kind of thinking often leads to trouble.
The article claims 3 challenges. I claim the article is worthless without addressing the 4th!
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."
They missed NIMBYism!!! Amateurs.
UNLESS, they included it in "...project permitting processes."
Maybe now that the Kennedy's have more or less completely kicked off at this point, Obama can finally tap the North Eastern ocean?
That's why we're developing grid energy storage.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
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.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
"I believe that mountain lions go downwind to stalk their prey. Is there any chance that the increased wind caused by the windmills has led to an influx of mountain lions because their prey is easier to stalk? Somebody should look into this." -Anon Reader, Dec. 19, 2010
"To the person who knows about the windmills in Western New York. Is there an entity to call to see is we can get them turned off for a couple weeks. We need some snow in the area before the people who plow snow go out of business. I think they keep pushing the storms back to the coast." -Anon Reader, Dec. 26, 2010
"It was a very calm day today so I drove out to see the windmills to set the record straight. Just as I thought, there was no wind today because they were not moving at all. The next windy day, I am driving out again and I bet they will be turning like crazy." -Anon Reader, Jan. 9, 2011
Nuclear occupies the mining space as well as the reactor space in land so they are probably about even there.
The technology employed in a Nuclear reactor will be almost a decade out of date on day one of production presuming the very latest technology was implemented in the design. With a wind farm new technology can be implemented as old wind generators come off-line. This means the gap between technology updates for wind power are available much closer in time when compared to production, this means the rate of technology development in wind power is faster than nuclear.
Wind power has a much lower energy cost to tear down because it can be demolished like a normal building, Nuclear power plant have very special and costly concerns when you have to tear them down and time will eventually take its toll on the reactor building.
Before some one talks about "Only Nuclear can do base load", base load is a function of the entire grid not any one energy source.
American are extremely blessed with wind power and indeed other sources. The potential exists to solve most, if not all of America's energy requirements. Every technology professional stands to benefit from the flow on effects of all alternate energy solution AND still use nuclear as a longer term solution as the technology is developed in that area. It's difficult to believe that there is only enough imagination for a Nuclear solution when, clearly, Solar and wind are very appealing technologically.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Offshore wind has a number of advantages over rural farmland. The wind is stronger and more consistent, which permits higher utilization and more regular power. The towers can also be taller, where the stronger and more consistent winds are. The turbines can be larger, which tend to have better conversion efficiency and, again, more consistency. Offshore puts the power production much closer to where it is consumed: a couple of miles offshore from the eastern seaboard is better than nearly over 1000 miles from Dakota to New York. All in all, you make much better use of your capital dollars by producing more power for longer periods of time. The main downside is that to service the equipment you need a boat, rather than just a utility truck. The other downside is that the wet, salty environment is traditionally awful for mechanical systems, but that can be alleviated with good design and proper maintenance.