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.
I agree that in the long-term nuclear is a pretty good idea. But right now, isn't practically an option; the politics of building new nuclear plants are extreme and it can end up taking a decade or two to build them. We need carbon neutral power sources now. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
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.
I don't know about the fuel mix in the state of New York (and maybe the headline is a mistake), but one explanation is that there are 2 ways to use the offshore area: 1) for producing wind power and 2) to drill for oil for cars. Cuomo's decision may pre-empt using the land for oil exploration and drilling. That's my two cents anyway.
Marc Jacobson has done a lot of research into the viability of renewables. (Indeed, he presented this very idea to NY a few years ago. https://news.stanford.edu/news... ) He found that using solar and wind are complementary. Wind tends to be highest at night; solar by day.
Robert Nagle, Idiotprogrammer, Houston
Today's nuclear SUCKS. it costs TOO MUCH. solar beat it years ago. with battery it probably also beats it today. Nuclear will take at least 5 years at best to build but more likely 10 years. It will cost a ton and the fuel is NOT cheap or plentiful. All that next gen BS is always 5 years away for the last 20 years; only gradual progress has been made to grandfather's nuclear - the next gen stuff still has not happened.
Better off dumping 1 billion into more fusion research for 10 years instead of 1 more nuclear plant. Yeah, it's over a billion per plant. That is not including all the free government services nuclear power gets at our tax paying expense (which is worse than solar by a lot.)
Spend 1 billion to make a massive battery and in less than 10 years we'll have it. without the long term upkeep costs too.
I am puzzled why people arguing FOR nuclear always get into government and political dysfunction when that is a HUGE reason to never do nuclear. We can't competently do it and private management is even worse... only the military handles it well (and cheaply.) If you argued the government should build it (which they'd fund and insure it anyway) and have the military own and run it then I'd be more open on that aspect of the argument. secure energy is a national security issue; more so than so much idiotic stuff we have them doing.
The politics of building offshore wind isn't much better. There will ALWAYS be people fighting any new development, and slowing (or, in the case of Cape Wind, killing) deployment of new power sources. So you might as well go "for the best" because going to a lower-grade solution won't relax the difficulties in the first place.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Solar could do it for about 101 square miles.
https://inovateus.com/2017/08/...
Elon Musk: “If you wanted to power the entire United States with solar panels, it would take a fairly small corner of Nevada or Texas or Utah. You only need about 100 miles by 100 miles of solar panels to power the entire United States. The batteries you [would] need to store the energy, so you have 24/7 power, is 1 mile by 1 mile. One square-mile.”
Even if he's off by 100% 200 square miles IMO is a good price for relatively clean renewable energy. Add wind farms, hydro, etc I don't see the need for the risk of nuclear. Unless you want to go (far) into space.
Yes, go California and New York - drive up the costs of living in your state and then cry like stuck pigs when your property taxes aren't deductible any more...
California has this fantastic idea called a bullet train that will be slightly faster than taking a plane, and is already enjoying unprecedented delays and budget-busting cost over-runs.
California has another great idea, it's called single-payer universal healthcare - it will only cost 2x the current state budget, but hey, I'm certain your residents will enjoy paying triple taxes.
California also currently enjoys the highest poverty rate of all 50 states, yet oddly is also one of th emost prosperous states in the union... Hmm.
New York recently (and may still offer) a blanket ten year wavier on state taxes to try and convince businesses to relocate to NY state... That one really peeved off a lot of the current business owners in New York that are expected to ignore the offer and just pay their taxes.
Ken
You aren't getting "carbon neutral powers sources NOW". Any sufficient power to just replace what we use will take years. This NYC wind farm is slated for 2028.
Where were u 30 years ago when I was debating with eco-freaks that couldn't understand that their over the top attack against Nuclear energy was actually causing harm and there wasn't a huge global conspiracy against their preferred "green energy source".
O well guess it's too late now...hope the eco-freaks are happy.
I calculated it last year when I lived in California.
The price of electricity in CA means that it to drive one mile in a Tesla is (just barely) more expensive than the gasoline it takes to drive a modern ice car a mile.
This is only comparing the "cost of fuel/electricity" to drive one mile. Regardless of other costs as an electric car being much more expensive.
If you did not get "free" charging stations, many of my old colleagues at Google would probably stop driving their Leafs/Teslas/etc.
These are the one percenters. Even some of them only drive EV because they get the electricity for free.
There's having caution and being so concerned on details that we're rearranging the deck chairs as the ship sinks. We have too many cooks and not enough indians... or something.
We can't put up the windmills because it might kill some birds. We can't have hydro because it might kill some fish. We can't have solar because it might disturb the mating habits of some turtle. We can't have "nukular" because of "deh rad-ee-ah-shun".
Okay, genius, what is the "cautious approach" here? If it's a choice between humanity and busting up some bird beaks then I choose humanity. It seems kind of pointless to "save the planet" if there's no people around to enjoy it. The planet is going to be fine, save the people. People seem so concerned about "the environment" as if humans are outside of it. We are part of the cycle of life as much as those turtles that can't seem to fuck in the shade of a solar collector.
It seems that there are "environmentalists" that want to live outside of the environment, like it's something that we visit in a zoo or park. Then there are "conservationists" that view the world as something we must live in, manage properly, and be a part of. Hunters have done far more to preserve wildlife than some fourth level vegan.
It's only "caution" if there is an action after thinking it over. If the thinking never ends, or no action after the thought, then it's worse than nothing at all.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
There is only one real solution: Nuclear.
[citation needed]
Not your grandfather's nuclear, TODAY'S nuclear.
I'm looking around, but I don't actually see any of today's nuclear. But what I do see actually being installed today is wind and solar. We should have been ramping up solar in the 1970s, since even the PV panels of those days would repay their energy investment in less than seven years, and most of those panels would still be functioning today. But people like you fought that tooth and nail, and now here we are today, with people like you clamoring for something which doesn't exist: safe nuclear power. There is no such thing, which is why the private sector can not and will not ever insure one. Decommissioning costs are always multiples of estimates and we still have no viable plan for dealing with nuclear waste. Even reprocessed fuel leaves waste behind, and the waste from that is spectacularly nasty. The solution for nuclear waste isn't to double down and produce worse nuclear waste. It's to stop producing it at all, because it's wholly unnecessary.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Most numbers you have are wrong. ... only rare cases are above. ... no idea why on /. people always claim it is lower. ...
Gasoline ICE, below 20%
Coal and gas plants have the same efficiency, around 42%-45%, exception are combined cycle gas plants which reach 60%.
Battery charging is about 95% - 99%
Electric engines are 99.999 (add as much 9 as you want) % efficient. Sine nearly 100 years
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
So you might as well go "for the best" because going to a lower-grade solution won't relax the difficulties in the first place.
Right, that's why stopgaps with nuclear are stupid. There is more than enough excess solar energy to cover all of our needs. We could be building solar power satellites with little to no new technology, and here we are arguing over what kind of baroque arrangements of steam turbines you would like to build here on earth. What year is it?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"