Slashdot Mirror
New York's $6 Billion Plan For Offshore Wind Shows That Oil Drilling Really Is On the Way Out (businessinsider.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Business Insider: Governor Andrew Cuomo unveiled a plan earlier this month to develop $6 billion of offshore wind projects off the southern coast of Long Island by 2028 and predicted that the industry would bring 5,000 jobs to the state. The plan calls for developing 2.4 gigawatts -- enough to power 1.2 million homes -- by 2030. It's all part of New York's Clean Energy Standard, which requires 50% of the state's electricity come from renewable sources like solar and wind. The move comes as President Donald Trump earlier this month announced a five-year plan to open up areas of the East Coast to offshore drilling.
"While the federal government continues to turn its back on protecting natural resources and plots to open up our coastline to drilling, New York is doubling down on our commitment to renewable energy and the industries of tomorrow," Cuomo said in a statement. Cuomo has asked Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke for an exemption from the drilling plan, saying in an open letter that the plan "undermines New York's efforts to combat climate change by shifting from greenhouse gas emitting fossil energy sources to renewable sources, such as offshore wind." The report identifies a 1 million acre site approximately 20 miles south of Long Island that would best support the wind turbines, and "ensure that, for the vast majority of the time, turbines would have no discernible or visible impact from the casual viewer on the shore." The report also notes that New Jersey announced a similar plan last Wednesday to develop 3.5 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity off its coast.
"While the federal government continues to turn its back on protecting natural resources and plots to open up our coastline to drilling, New York is doubling down on our commitment to renewable energy and the industries of tomorrow," Cuomo said in a statement. Cuomo has asked Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke for an exemption from the drilling plan, saying in an open letter that the plan "undermines New York's efforts to combat climate change by shifting from greenhouse gas emitting fossil energy sources to renewable sources, such as offshore wind." The report identifies a 1 million acre site approximately 20 miles south of Long Island that would best support the wind turbines, and "ensure that, for the vast majority of the time, turbines would have no discernible or visible impact from the casual viewer on the shore." The report also notes that New Jersey announced a similar plan last Wednesday to develop 3.5 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity off its coast.
Oil is not used in the generating of energy for the electrical grid so how does a subsidized wind project show that oil is on the way out. Oil is used in heating via heating oil, but the alternative is natural gas which is far more efficient then electric heating. Natural gas is whats used (along with coal, nuclear, etc) in generating electricity...but natural gas != oil.
Finally...what happens when the wind is not blowing? The electrical grid requires a base level going through it and when its a calm night, you have no solar or wind power going into the grid.
1. New York Builds Windfarm for electricity ....
2.
3. Oil for liquid fuel, Feedstocks, plastics and lubricants on the way out ?
Wind is great, wind is awesome. But wind alone will never be able to meet all of societies demands for power. There is only one real solution: Nuclear. Not your grandfather's nuclear, TODAY'S nuclear.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
the energy density of batteries approaches that of diesel fuel.
Nothing says protecting nature like 100 windmills on your ocean front view.
Actually, hydrocarbon fuel can be synthesized from CO2 and water with enough energy input. And it's GREEN!
The only problem I can see is if the demand for hydrocarbon fuel becomes great enough to deplete CO2 in the atmosphere which will cause plant life to die. Then we die. OOPS!
Compare MTBF of solar to real power solutions MTBF and you will see this their plan is stupid.
Solar energy density is too low. Go make steel with solar... can't be done...
No way! There is plenty of CO2 that itâ(TM)s near impossible to sequester what weâ(TM)ve already released from fossil fuels
"The plan calls for developing 2.4 gigawatts"
Couldn't they have pushed for an extra 0.02 gigawatts? Then they'd have enough for two flux capacitors.
and magic logic.
Aint gonna happen hippie wannabe.
Stop throwing your "base load" from your pants at everybody!
Niagara Falls is used already. Solar and Wind can meet all their needs if combined with storage. Ocean WIND is much better than land. Battery storage as well as LONG DISTANCE TRANSMISSION works far better than people realize. It's so stupid to say the same stupid obvious stuff about the sun, moon, wind, while ignoring the less obvious power storage and distribution!
This plan a step forward.
OIL is something they don't want off their coast; even if it's used in their cars and heating. Electric cars are moving forward so fast that 10 years ago today's shift would seem like a joke. This is a long term plan and by the time it finishes electric cars will have progressed further than they have over the whole last decade. So it is smart to realize this will impact oil demand. It's not built tomorrow; when it is, it will be part of the combustion car solution.
Heating. That will need some more planning. building standards etc can help. best thing would be to put together a war-chest like it's WW3 and seriously retrofit everything we can. I've rebuilt walls on 50s houses to double width and more than 2x R value. It wasn't horribly expensive or difficult. I can even replace the roof while living in the house.
But more seriously, they can get into burning the crazy amount of trash they output. Geothermal is another option (and electric.) oil burners I've seen are extremely wasteful heaters. they need to migrate to natural gas.
US Navy is blocking an off-shore windfarm 3 mi. off coast where I live.
They apparently stated that any windfarm that distance off-shore would cause a large negative impact to their operations.
It is a fairly small project. Hard to believe the Navy can't just steer around it when in the neighborhood.
That's a hefty pricetag. Even solar would be significantly cheaper, why not offshoring some solar panels?
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
2.4 gigawatts
Yeah, that's only two time-traveling Deloreans.
Nuclear is the way to go. There are risks, for sure, but they can be mitigated until we invent Mr. Fusion.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Awesome! I think it's too bad that the federal government won't be doing any large scale, forward-thinking, society-improving things for the immediate future, so I'm thrilled that the Big Blue states are picking up the slack. Go, New York and California! Better late than never!
I don't respond to AC's.
I started high school in '08. I remember well.
Respectfully,
Beau
Why the fuck is a 20 year old on this site? Seriously, what do you get from hearing a bunch of cranky old low-level IT workers?
wow that seems to be some seriously expensive power generation. are the number really correct? surely that would massively drive up power costs buying from such costly power generation.
In the transition from where we are to where we will be with respect to energy, the idea of an "energy portfolio" is crucial. Societies will mix and match sources to accommodate geography, locale, weather, seasons, time of day, and available resources as well as user load. Transition from one portfolio mix to another will take decades, and will depend on exisiting and projected infrastructure and engineering projects, the economy, public policy, and political will. "Wind is a blowin' in, and oil is a burnin' out" - you are correct, one project does not the case make. But look at this in context of other current news. Wind installations are no longer just incidental odd job projects, and this one is being sponsored by a whole State. Solar is advancing rapidly. Nuclear is being discussed again. Energy recycling and repurposing is getting serious discussion (e.g. using ventilation from data centers to heat houses). Energy storage has always been a central issue, but Tesla has hit the news in recent weeks for its major battery projects such as in Australia. Electric cars have developed traction almost overnight. Need more proof that the idea of a new energy economy is trenchant? Saudi Arabia has been in the news of late, looking to diversify its economy in recognition that the oil genie might not grant wishes forever. One wind project by itself does not "show that oil is on the way out", but it is another high profile indicator that that is true. "On the way out" is not instant gratification - it might be 50 or 100 years before we achieve a globally respectable degree of sustainable and eco-friendly energy production. This project though is another welcome indicator that the concept has taken hold, and that society just might be on a committed pathway to reduce petroleum use.
Offshore oil drilling is on hold because oil prices are not high enough to justify building new offshore rigs given whatever tradeoffs good or bad.
But if/when oil prices get high enough, there definitely will be offshore drilling off the New York coast, most likely NOT for local consumption, but for export. If there's enough financial motivation, projects will get approved.
And the wind farms will still be there... and may even have more wind farms put up because they're so much cheaper than burning oil based products for electricity.
Governor Andrew Cuomo unveiled a plan earlier this month to develop $6 billion of offshore wind projects off the southern coast of Long Island by 2028 and predicted that the industry would bring 5,000 jobs to the state. The plan calls for developing 2.4 gigawatts -- enough to power 1.2 million homes -- by 2030.
The report also notes that New Jersey announced a similar plan last Wednesday to develop 3.5 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity off its coast.
Why was New Jersey's plan to build 3.4 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity tossed in as an afterthought, but the article focuses on New York's plan to build 2.4 Gigawatts...
Ken
This happens literally every year, and yet seldom do any of the plans move forward because they never get any real support. Why waste my time with another one?
You could go back to 1955, check out the girls at the "Enchantment under the sea" and then to your time again...and you would still have some juice left.
Electric cars have developed traction almost overnight.
How old are you? To make that kind of statement means a level of ignorance that can almost only come from youth.
Electric cars have been trying to compete with internal combustion for over a century. Oddly enough the final nail in the electric car coffin was the electric starter. Before then the operation of a gasoline engine was a very complicated and physically demanding process, but electric cars were push button operated. We might have electric starters, electric drive trains, and all kinds of other electric devices on a car but the primary source of the power is still gasoline. If something should change that in the future then it would be far from an "overnight success".
This project though is another welcome indicator that the concept has taken hold, and that society just might be on a committed pathway to reduce petroleum use.
We didn't go to the moon on wind power and a trip to Mars won't be powered by wind either. The future will be very energy intensive, and wind is not going to be enough. That does not mean we use petroleum, it just means that we won't be using wind power. Wind power used to rule the seas, and if we go back to wind power for our travels then we've seriously screwed up somewhere.
Saudi Arabia has been in the news of late, looking to diversify its economy in recognition that the oil genie might not grant wishes forever.
I've read the news too. Saudi Arabia has plans to build dozens of nuclear power plants in the coming decades. They see a growing need for domestic energy and the more oil and natural gas they burn for that electricity is the less they can export. Sure, they will invest in solar power too but, as you point out, they will diversify.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Are you serious?
How is this any different from politically connected oil companies that get drilling & pipeline rights?
Hell those companies are so well connected they literally had presidents in their pockets and started wars/CIA assassinations to further their interests...
Sure, everything goes to a contractor and there is some corruption but oil and clean energy are not even in the same ballpark when it comes to corruption.
I expect any projects of this magnitude in NY/NJ to have immense constructions cost overruns, constant delays, labor union disputes, slowdowns, strikes, and lawsuits, along with massive corruption and embezzlement. If I were a betting man, I'd lay odds that at least some of these projects will be virtually forever "under construction" and will be sucking the citizens dry of money for decades beyond the original planned completion date.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Seriously, we have tons of old oil platforms out there. Once done with oil, turn them into wind turbines. Or even put one up while drilling so it provides electricity for drilling/pumping.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
2.4 Giga watts? That's almost double 1.21 Giga watts, which you need a nuclear reaction for!
god damn you are a fucking retard
Why the fuck is a 20 year old on this site? Seriously, what do you get from hearing a bunch of cranky old low-level IT workers?
Wisdom.
And speak for yourself if you're still sucking the low-level hind tit.
Hipster lefties at slashdot promote articles that are biased and not tech based in order to push the Democrat prog left agenda.
It is only fun to make drive by comments here. Was different in the past though when slashdot editors had brains that were not full of indoctrination and mush.
Saudi Arabia has been diversifying for over twenty years, you moron. Just how old are you?
Wind power used to rule the seas, and if we go back to wind power for our travels then we've seriously screwed up somewhere. ... you have to pay the crew twice as much for one load of shipment .... poor sods.
You are such an idiot, it is unbelievable.
Except for Mango or other fruits there is no funking reason on the planet that a ship needs to travel from Asia to America in 2 weeks instead of 4.
Oh, yeah
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
We didn't go to the moon on wind power and a trip to Mars won't be powered by wind either.
99% of our industry will not involve wasteful and pointless trips to the Moon or Mars.
I've read the news too. Saudi Arabia has plans to build dozens of nuclear power plants in the coming decades.
They have zero reactors operating. Let us known when they have a single one.
Meanwhile, they could buy solar panels and have them up and running this year.
"But it's in direct conflict with President Donald Trump's plan to open up the Atlantic Coast to offshore oil drilling."
How is adding wind in conflict with offshore drilling? There's plenty of room for both in the Atlantic ocean.
"Cuomo has asked Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke for an exemption from the drilling plan, saying in an open letter that the plan "undermines New York's efforts to combat climate change by shifting from greenhouse gas emitting fossil energy sources to renewable sources, such as offshore wind."
How does offshore drilling undermine New York's efforts? The only way it could do that is if the wind energy isn't cost competitive due to low prices for fossil fuels. The right answer to that is cheaper wind energy.
After the Cape Wind debacle it will be interesting to see if this ever happens.
Electric cars have been trying to compete with internal combustion for over a century.
They really haven't, though. At least the majority of the 20th Century saw little competition in that area; The existence of electric vehicles is not the same as competition.
By your metric, steam powered cars have also been "trying to compete" with internal combustion, because once upon a time steam powered cars were a thing.
It wasn't really until circa 2009 with the Nissan LEAF that all-electric highway vehicles became a viable mainstream option.
We didn't go to the moon on wind power and a trip to Mars won't be powered by wind either. The future will be very energy intensive, and wind is not going to be enough.
Oddly, the trip *itself* might not be wind powered but using wind power once you get to Mars is actually a viable option. There's no lack of wind on Mars, solar is much less effective, and even though the atmospheric pressure is lower the mostly CO2 atmosphere is a lot denser, so wind turbines are still a pretty good choice.
But maybe the trip itself can, in fact, be renewables-powered in a sense. We can manufacture hydrocarbon fuels using CO2 and input energy... which could come from things like wind power. And of course there's always hydrogen+oxygen fuel which is readily made from electricity.
=Smidge=
By your metric, steam powered cars have also been "trying to compete" with internal combustion, because once upon a time steam powered cars were a thing.
People tried to compete with steam, and they failed. People still try with electric, and they'd fail too if the government wasn't propping them up.
I'm fine with people investing into electric vehicles. It's their money, they can spend it as they wish. It doesn't bother me any. Just don't have the government take my money, give it to some rich guy to buy a four door penis... I mean, Tesla, and say the government is doing me any kind of favor.
It wasn't really until circa 2009 with the Nissan LEAF that all-electric highway vehicles became a viable mainstream option.
It took people over 100 years of trying and I still can't find an electric vehicle that won't get stuck in a little snow. Keep trying, maybe in another 100 years they'll get there.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
They have zero reactors operating. Let us known when they have a single one.
Meanwhile, they could buy solar panels and have them up and running this year.
You think that the princes in Saudi Arabia don't know this? Of course they know that investing in nuclear power won't pay off for years. Yet, they are going ahead with it. Think about why that might be.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
if CO2 starts to drop we'll just burn some fossil fuels and hold it at the right level
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
People still try with electric, and they'd fail too if the government wasn't propping them up.
Great concept; Let's remove all the subsidies, handouts and special considerations the petroleum industry gets and see what happens!
I don't think you considered your tired, bruised argument very well...
It took people over 100 years of trying and I still can't find an electric vehicle that won't get stuck in a little snow.
Maybe get your head out of your ass, then? :D They typical EV's extra weight often gives them an advantage in snow over gasoline vehicles of the same size class.
=Smidge=
Batteries/panels/wind equipment will need to be made by...guess what...digging up the ground and destroying natural habitats just like oil and fracking and gas and offshore drilling. When batteries are dis guarded they don't get recycled properly because there's no cost to battery manufacturers so we end but with a plastics and landfill problem again.
The reality of what is needed (without corruption) is a realistic review of inputs and cost of negative externalities of production and how we deal with them through taxation incentives. i.e x-prize for degradable/reusable plastics; More research and taxation on reusable plastic substance from natural materials e.g those edible spoons.
But the answer humans come up with will of course always be to dump waste in a third world country by paying off corrupt officials who live away from plastic and toxic polluted slums.
This is just the way it is.
Cuomo is running for president by spending tax dollars to buy votes. Value to society (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with it.
Saudi Arabian princes are established as corrupt and prone to grandiose promises. They regularly promise some plan for steering an iceberg to solve their water problems.
I said let us know when they get a reactor online. Think about why I would want to assess their competence with an analysis that occurs after they deliver results.
Anyone seen New York traffic? They love their autos.
New York should change. They contribute a lot to this nations carbon foot print.
The claim #3 you made up is one YOU MADE UP. So if it feels like underpant gnomes reasoning, that is because you're only capable of that level of "thought".
hurricane
hrikn/
noun
noun: hurricane; plural noun: hurricanes
a storm with a violent wind.
a wind of force 12 on the Beaufort scale (equal to or exceeding 64 knots or 74 mph).
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Natural gas is a thing and coal is a thing. But short of Hawaii, I don't think oil is a relevant energy source for the grid.
What is more, we're not seeing a decline in the industry. The prices have been kept low due to abundant production not due to lack of demand.
What is more, the whole "wind" argument is very hard to calculate because it tends to be state sponsored stuff that doesn't even have to make economic sense to be built.
A good metric of whether something is affordable is the wealth of the economy implementing an idea.
The US during the Space Race could dump something like 4 percent of its huge GDP into space exploration. This is not something that was done because it was economical but rather because we had the money and the will to do something that was NOT economical.
New York doing something doesn't mean it is economical. New York, the US, Germany, California, etc can do all sorts of things that are economically idiotic because they have the money to blow on ideas that don't make financial sense.
Show me the wind farms of Africa? If it is so economical, why do they not do it? Why do they implement other energy sources?
Why do the solar power factories in China power themselves with coal power? No one can get solar panels cheaper than the chinese. The economics are better for them than anyone else. And yet they don't do it. Why?
Because it isn't economical. Obviously. As in 1+1=2 obvious.
We can pretend otherwise but I'll just be putting on a Santa suit for children at that point.
Now just because something isn't financially sensible doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. We just have to justify on another basis.
Argue morality or whatever makes you happy. But if you tell me it is "money"... well... I'm going to pull out the excel spread sheet. And then you're going to have to explain to me why the numbers don't add up. And if that doesn't happen... questions of core competency or integrity will be queried. Not be rude or hostile here. But if an argument is irrational it is only sensible to treat the person making it as irrational.
Please argue for financially poor ideas on a basis besides finance.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The medical industry research is not science, because the vast majority is done under NDA and control of the business trying to make a profit from the medicine. The science is done funded by government, and it's a tiny fraction of the work. And what happens is that any bad result they like the answer of for their profit motive, they publish, and every one the don't like but is sound is buried.
See that meta study for example. Not done by GSK, is it.
So try again, retard. Just because you don't know doesn't make your feelings valid reality.
Bask in the radiation glow? What do you do when your gas station explodes or your coal power station catches fire?
Can I sell you some Solyndra sharts?
The governor of the most corrupt state in the union announcing plans to spend $6 billion more of taxpayers' dollars on a project no one wants badly enough to voluntarily put their own money into.
Slashdot cheers.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The USA is now a net fuel exporter today and will be as long as there's money in it. Get the locals to pay for higher renewable energy sources and export oil and gas to those smart enough to use it. Keep towing the agenda line my /. mods. *Good dog. Now roll over.*
They typical EV's extra weight often gives them an advantage in snow over gasoline vehicles of the same size class.
I don't care about "size class". I care about the money I have to spend and getting through the snow.
What does the typical EV cost? Let's say even a used one. Well, I just did a quick search for dealers around me for electric cars. I found a few used EVs for less than $15,000. That's not bad. I paid about the same for my 4x4 Ford Explorer. Now, tell me which one is more likely to get stuck in the snow?
Will the EV cost less to fuel? Cost less to insure, repair, and so on? That's quite likely. Will it get stuck in the snow? Also quite likely.
You want to claim I'm a special case that represents some small fraction of the population? I'll agree with that. Even if I'm like only 1% of the population then that still means millions of small 4x4 gasoline trucks and SUVs sold in the USA. You want to claim I can just stay home when it snows? Work from home, "telecommute", on those days? Sure, I could likely make that work. I'd just rather not have my travel plans dictated by the weather and how much the city feels like plowing my street that day.
I don't think you considered your tired, bruised argument very well...
Kind of like how you considered your comment on "size class"?
I could probably get a very nice electric car that can handle the snow very well. It might cost $70,000 but I can get one. Do you know what I could also get for $70,000? A very nice 3/4 ton truck. That would also handle the snow very well.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/ener...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Big Giant Orange Head was told those offshore wind turbines are drilling for coal! So he's cool with it.
He says it will bring in 5,000 new jobs - what about the jobs lost somewhere else caused by taking $5 billion dollars from the economy? I'm sure he is wanting the money to come from the federal budget somewhere and not from his budget. Because if it is from his, I expect it will be a net loss.
This article is a waste of bandwidth and is warming the planet.
Israel has nukes. Iran may or may not get nukes soon. Pakistan isn't all that far away, they have nukes.
Saudi Arabia is a repressive dictatorship, currently a patron state of USA, but the winds are ever changing.
It makes a lot of sense for the Saudi Arabia to get some nuclear experience. If it even provides a bit of power too, that's icing on the cake.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
The Martian was not representative of weather on Mars. The atmosphere is wayyyyy too thin to provide useful amounts of impetus.
2.4 gigawatts divided by 1.2 million houses results in 2 kilowatts per house. At 120 volts that equals 16.6 amps per house, or about enough for a large toaster oven. Most houses today have 200 amp services, and even in the fifties they were built with 40 amp services. This assumes we only need enough electricity to run a fridge and freezer ( but not both at the same time ) and a few lights. Recharging an e.v. would take weeks. Heating or air conditioning would be right out. They're preparing us for a third world lifestyle.
You live and learn, or you don't learn much.
I'm all in favor of this on one condition: the first oil wells and wind turbines need to be located within a golf ball's flight distance of Mar-a-largo!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
It took people over 100 years of trying and I still can't find an electric vehicle that won't get stuck in a little snow.
Maybe you should learn how to drive in a little snow? It's really not that difficult if you're careful and practice a bit.
Petroleum doesn't get any special considerations, subsidies, or "handouts" that other industries don't get. Capital and reserve depreciation are what ignorant people like you like to pretend are special gifts to the oil industry, but the fact is that they are applied to EVERY industry.
Do you manufacture widgets? You get capital depreciation.
Do you mine foomba juice? You get capital depreciation.
Do you lie on slashdot about the oil industry? Well, ok - not EVERY industry gets it.
Maybe you should learn how to drive in a little snow? It's really not that difficult if you're careful and practice a bit.
My first response to that is I don't know how "learning to drive" helps when the snow is deep enough that it's getting plowed up in front of the car. Maybe "a little snow" was an understatement, we can see a lot of snow around here.
My second response is I'd rather not bother "learning to drive" because if I have a truck with traction control, anti-lock brakes, 4 wheel drive, snow tires, and high(er) clearance, then I don't have to know how to drive in the snow. I just drive.
My last car would routinely be unable to make it up the hill on the street to my house, as was also the case with my neighbors with minivans and sedans. Since I got my truck there was only one time that I could not park in my garage. There was an ice storm while I was away from home and trying to get up my (relatively steep) driveway I had all four wheels spinning on the ice. My mistake was shoveling off the snow before I left, which left the truck unable to dig into the snow like it could on the unplowed street. So in that case I just parked across the street, the next morning the sun came up and thinned the ice enough I could drive into the garage.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
I don't care about "size class". I care about the money I have to spend and getting through the snow.
This kind of self-contradictory comment tells me you don't actually care, and are willing to move any amount of goalposts to maintain your current opinion. Size is an important factor for meeting your snow-handling criteria.
I mentioned size class because it's relevant to your criteria. Obviously compact cars in general will be less capable in heavy snow than SUVs; but an electric vehicle will generally be more capable than a gasoline powered vehicle of the same size class. Apples to apples.
I paid about the same for my 4x4 Ford Explorer. Now, tell me which one is more likely to get stuck in the snow?
Probably the Ford. On its roof.
=Smidge=
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/a...
Yes, the atmospheric pressure is lower, but it's also much denser which offsets the lower pressure considerably. Wind power, while not as effective as they would be on Earth, is still a viable option on Mars.
=Smidge=
>The report identifies a 1 million acre site
Not a large footprint at all. The fish and birds will hardly notice.
It's funny how the protectors of the environment find that the biggest consideration for this project is that nobody on shore will be able to see it.
did you read your link? it's saying atmospheric pressure and hence density isn't good so not particularly viable, except during dust storms.
not enough energy to power a turbine unless you've got enough speed to kick up all the dust and block out the sun.
possible... but also not the best way to generate electricity. when you can just plop some radioactive stuff on that rock and generate electricity that way.