Slashdot Mirror
Energy Department Proposes Funding For Ohio's First Offshore Wind Project
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: An energy development group has been working for years to put together Ohio's first offshore wind project. That might sound odd for a state so far from the sea, but the benefits of offshore wind (strong, consistent gusts and relative proximity to major population centers) translate to wind turbines that are placed in freshwater, too. Consequently, an area eight miles off Ohio's Lake Erie coastline is slated to see six new 3.45 megawatt (MW) turbines as part of a 20.7MW pilot installation. On Thursday, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued an Environmental Assessment stating that proceeding with the plan would not cause any "impact to the human environment." In an additional finding published by the DOE this week, the department added that it did not believe that the offshore wind project would cause significant damage to migratory birds, either. Finally, the DOE proposed an unspecified amount of funding for the project, which will be the first freshwater offshore wind project in the US and one of the first offshore wind projects overall. The Lake Erie Energy Department Corporation (LEEDCo) and Norwegian investor Fred Olsen Renewables (FOR) will be developing the "Icebreaker" project, as the turbine installation has been called. "Interestingly, the turbines will be secured to the lake using a 'Mono Bucket' foundation, with a suction-based design that's similar to what's been used on offshore oil-drilling platforms in the North Sea," reports Ars. "The design, LEEDCo says, uses 'the best and lowest-cost technology for sites 25 meters and less.'"
Most of the Lake Erie economy depends on tourism. These will be a complete eyesore and will take away from the natural beauty the Great Lakes give. Lots of fishing, sailing and boating happen on Lake Eerie and its a way for people to get away and be out in nature. These will only detract and hurt the tourism of the region for the little amount of power they will generate.
Cargo ships are an eyesore, we allow them on Lake Erie.
Where Chernobyl and Fukohama not enough for you? There is no such thing as a safe nuclear reactor. LNG is the way to go.
That's some messed up logic.
There's no such thing as a safe car, therefore we should not drive.
There's no such thing as a safe airplane, therefore we should not fly.
There's no such thing as safe food, therefore we should not eat.
There's no such thing as safe surgery, therefore we should no longer perform surgery.
Natural gas is far more dangerous than nuclear power. Here's some proof:
https://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2018/08/why-i-favor-nuclear-power.html
If safety of your energy sources concern you then nuclear power needs to be at the top of your list.
I see where you're going with this and it's an interesting concept.
We could drain the lake somewhat; fill in some of the shore with, say, plastic debris, and use the new shallows as oil flats much like salt-flat technology.
Peasants (refugees and immigrants) could go out each day with plastic bottles and collect the oil floating atop the liquefied shallows and pour those into the hold of an Exxon (Valdez class) tanker that will sail out to sea, follow the coast line to Port Arthur, Texas and deliver to the Saudi Arabian-owned refinery complex there.
It's a win-win.
The plan does not include the use of coal yet, but that could be worked in somehow.
Perhaps we could ship it in to keep the peasants warm in winter and to provide pot-bellied stoves for nourishment.
Not addressed is the hit corporate prisons will take when we divert the slave trade from corporate prisons to oil farms, but we can craft some laws where it's not only illegal to be driving while Black, we could expand that to walking while Black.
I can't think of everything.
I'll leave that to the fossil fuel lobbyists as I finish my bottle of water.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
There's no such thing as a safe car, therefore we should not drive ... There's no such thing as safe food, therefore we should not eat.
Those are silly analogies. What are the alternatives to driving cars or eating food?
But nukes have good alternatives: solar+wind+storage.
The biggest issue is not even safety, but economics. Solar and wind are cheaper and declining in price. Nukes are expensive and getting more so. The "standardized" AP1000 design was supposed to cut costs. Guess what? It didn't.
The project will be located 8 miles offshore, vertically. See the official website: http://www.leedco.org/index.ph... for the map / plan. There's little public or political will for the nuclear energy industry - at least beyond Tennessee's TVA. Per Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States), about 1/2 of the plants are operating at a loss. Shutdown expenses are substantial (https://www.energydigital.com/utilities/what-does-it-cost-decommission-nuclear-power-plant). 2nd, despite the Executive branch backing of the coal industry, it's decline is inevitable. Again, there's little public support beyond the coal producing regions for coal fired plants. Here's an interesting article on that subject: https://energytransition.org/2.... Murray coal is the biggest producer of coal today in the U.S., but like the Saudis, they need to look beyond their current business model. I find it difficult to understand the hostility toward renewables in the U.S., though it seems that hostility is on a decline. Anyone who has a romantic notion of coal and their supported communities must have little familiarity with actually working in the mines, even with contemporary technology. Families have paid a high cost over many generations for coal. And I say this from my own family's history. I've walked those hills, I've visited cousins in coal country towns. I've watched the young move as quickly as their feet can take them. As my dad would say, "it's a done deal'.