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."
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!
Most of the pricepoint for wind is tied up in all the "Impact studies" that have been tied to it by various NIMBY groups.
"how will it impact tourism?" ... ... ...
"how will it impact the migratory habits of the eastern canada goose?"
"how will it impact cellular telephone reception?"
"How will it impact the local congressman's chances for re-election?"
With pretty much all of them being valued at OVER the 50 million startup capital investment made by this move.
Quite amusing how all these impact studies get tacked on to projects intended to make everyone's life better, but not on building or development projects of similar scope or magnitude in civic centers. When was the last time you saw a cellular telephone tower getting tied down with impact studies on sparrows? Didn't think so.
Coal and natural gas may last a few hundred years. Wind will be available forever. We will have to switch away from fossil fuels at some point, no matter what objection to alternative energy you can produce. You can't change physics.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
But it seems both the summary and TFA overlooked the FOURTH big Key Challenge to getting off shore wind projects started, namely Ted Kennedy, (rip).
A steadfast opponent of anything in his back yard, he pretty well held the entire off shore industry in check for 30 years.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
What does the efficiency matter when the resource is free? What is more important is the capital cost and
the operating costs. I would be curious to see a citation for your claim of 1% efficiency of wind turbines.
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.
Bring it to the rustbelt, we have some of the best spots for wind generation in the country, some of the dirtiest power production, and not so many up tight people worried about their view being ruined. Oh, and can float the parts out of the factory if you set it up in one of the hundreds of abandoned factories on the waterfronts thus reducing shipping costs to near free.
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.
Wind is less than 1% as efficient as coal.
How can you define efficiency for both wind and coal? Typically the efficiency of a coal power plant is measured as the amount of recovered energy over the amount of released energy (from combustion). How do you define what energy is available for wind power?
Even more importantly, we don't much care how much power is harvested from the wind; what we care about is total output over installation costs, or over maintenance costs. While the wind may not, strictly speaking, be an unlimited resource, it can be easily externalized by wind companies, without too many complaints from neighbors who don't have the breezes they used to.
Why is private profit more important than clean air and energy security? Switching to another fossil fuel is just bailing out the Titanic, you're still going down sooner or later.