Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Power Earth Science

First US Offshore Wind Power Park In Delaware 363

Dekortage writes "Offshore wind power company Bluewater Wind has announced an agreement to build America's first offshore wind turbine park off the coast of Delaware. 'Each turbine [will sit on] a pole about 250 feet above the waterline... the units are to be constructed to withstand hurricane-force winds. From the shore, the park will be visible only on clear winter days, and the turbines will be nearly invisible during summer months when Rehoboth Beach fills with vacationers. Each blade on the three-blade rotor is to be 150 feet long.' The wind farm will power 50,000 homes in Delaware, using about half of its capacity."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

First US Offshore Wind Power Park In Delaware

Comments Filter:
  • Ocean view (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Oxy the moron ( 770724 ) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @03:00PM (#23922435)

    My family usually makes a trip every year to Bethany Beach, which is just a bit south of Rehoboth Beach. While I understand that it's better for most tourists if the turbines are not visible, it'd be cool if we could make it into a real-life science "field trip" for the kids sometime in the future.

    Are there any plans for something like a small boat trip to see them up close? Maybe they could build a museum?

  • by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @03:00PM (#23922439) Journal
    All the states around the great lakes could use these as well. What surprises me, is that if you have the pole there, then why not add in tidal or even wave power as well? I believe that the expensive part about all this, is getting anchored securely to the floor.
  • Feasible? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by spleen_blender ( 949762 ) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @03:03PM (#23922497)
    I wonder if it would be feasible to use the base upon which the turbines sit to put in place tidal generators as well.
  • by MortenLJ ( 686173 ) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @03:09PM (#23922619)
    Admitted, I don't know much about alternative energy, but I do know that wave- and tidal-power is still on the experimental state. I think the primary problem with wave energy is the tremendous strain which is placed on the structure over extended periods of time. Meanwhile Vestas [wikipedia.org], the turbine supplier for this project, has been producing wind turbines which has been used in practice since '79. I.e. wind energy is tried and tested technology which supplies my country (Denmark) with 19% of the total power consumed [wikipedia.org].
  • by ivan256 ( 17499 ) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @03:21PM (#23922849)

    They're not answered anywhere on the company's website or in the article...

    The answers to these questions are important when determining whether this project is worthy of support or not:

    Who is paying to build the windfarm?
    Who gets to keep the profit from the windfarm?

    For the windfarm they wanted to build around here, the answers were "me" (through tax dollars), and "not me" (as in some private corporation got to keep the profit, even though they didn't pay for the initial investment). Luckily a sufficient number of people were able to see that they were getting screwed through the veil of "environmental responsibility" in order to get the project canceled.

  • Ah... home! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DelawareGT ( 905614 ) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @03:31PM (#23923013)
    Not bad! At peak capacity, the off-shore wind farm can power 110,000 homes in the state (nearly a third of all homes) [1][2].

    Living in Delaware definitely has its perks. Blue crabs, the beaches, pumpkin' chunkin' festivals [wikipedia.org], scrapple [wikipedia.org] (mmm!). Also, fans of craft beer will note that Dogfish Head [dogfish.com] is brewed there too.

    [1] http://www.bluewaterwind.com/de_overview.htm [bluewaterwind.com]
    [2] http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/10000.html [census.gov]

  • Re:Ocean view (Score:5, Interesting)

    by stormguard2099 ( 1177733 ) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @03:50PM (#23923295)

    If you ever have the chance, go to Tarifa, Spain. It's one of the most beautiful places I have ever been.

    The beaches are nice and wide with fine sand. It makes for a perfect place to ride wind powered boards and of course kite surfing in the ocean.

    All of this wind also makes for the perfect location for windfarms. The area around Tarifa is spotted with the turbines. Honestly that was my favorite view was to stand on the beach and watch all of turbines happily spinning up on the mountains producing nice clean energy.

    If I had faster internet I'd find you some links for pics.

  • Comment removed (Score:1, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @03:51PM (#23923315)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Environmental Impact (Score:1, Interesting)

    by m3j00 ( 606453 ) <meeyou@NosPAM.gmail.com> on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @04:07PM (#23923599)
    Surely an offshore windfarm would reduce wind speeds on the shore behind it? It seems like this could turn a breezy summer day into an uncomfortably hot day given the right circumstances. Everyone considers wind power to be environmentally friendly by default. Has research been done about the effects it could have on weather and climate?
  • by katch22 ( 1248646 ) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @04:12PM (#23923669)
    I've been saying the same thing for a long time. I'm pretty sure Mr. Newton got his laws right--IIRC, if we pull energy from the wind, doesn't that mean the wind has less energy? What are the long-term impacts upon the climate? No. Wait. Its not oil. It MUST be good for the environment.
  • by GeckoX ( 259575 ) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @04:15PM (#23923699)

    That is somewhat insane, sort of...as others point out there is some fallacy in why that is insane though.

    What is insane about it is that the cost is highly inflated, both initial and maintenance-wise, because it is being built _in_the_ocean_.

    That is what is insane, never mind stupid and senseless.

    Build it onshore and the cost comes way down. This looks almost like it is a project designed to 'prove' that wind power is not financially viable.

  • Re:Ocean view (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MightyYar ( 622222 ) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @04:16PM (#23923727)

    Does anybody understand why?
    I don't know this for sure, but I did grow up on the ocean, and it is true that you can see further in the winter. I think it must have to do with evaporation off of the ocean - or possibly the mist that is created by the interaction between the warm humid air and the relatively cool water.

    Besides California, the only place I've seen turbines is in Atlantic City, NJ... they power a sewage treatment plant right off to the left as you drive into town. They are just about the only interesting thing to see on the drive in, so I don't know why people object to them. Out on the water, they would look a lot nicer than container ships, and they sure as hell beat Cigarette boats with no mufflers. For that matter, why don't people get all wound up about airplanes spoiling the natural view of the sky?

  • by T3Tech ( 1306739 ) <tjNO@SPAMt3technet.com> on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @04:18PM (#23923741) Homepage

    Who is paying to build the windfarm?
    Who gets to keep the profit from the windfarm?
    I'm not sure of the answer to these questions and I live close enough to the region to have heard the smear campaign Delmarva Power (the local power monopoly) was running against Bluewater on the radio. Their radio ad went into how it would cost customer's so much more money, yadda, yadda, FUD, blah, blah, FUD. From my limited knowledge on it, I believe Delmarva had a more lucrative deal in the works with some onshore wind farms and my guess is that Delmarva viewed Bluewater as being a real threat to their profits.

    Apparently Delmarva has come to a contract agreement with Bluewater now. There's a bunch of related news links available here [windaction.org], which I haven't bothered to read.
  • Re:Nuclear power? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by biteableniles ( 532598 ) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @04:37PM (#23924013)
    What could the long term affects be, other than those caused by the actual manufacturing of the turbine itself? Someone else on Slashdot, way back, suggested that if we wanted to see the affect of covering an entire continent with wind power generators, look at the affect the massive tree growth in Europe had on wind. The end result will be the same. That is to say, there won't be any problems. Wind power is just a strange form of Solar power. As long as there are temperature differentials between areas (caused by the sun) as well as other affects, there will be wind regardless of what we put in the way.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @05:09PM (#23924465)

    The article talks about the wind farm being so far offshore that you can't see it, as if this is a good thing. Why do people not like to look at wind turbines 1 mile out? I can understand not wanting one over your head, but why don't people who own real estate nearby think they look cool, not just intrinsically but also for what they represent?

    Honestly, we need some hard-headed leadership that will literally jam through as many alternative energy solutions as possible, even if they are only close to being cost effective. By diversifying our energy resources we will lower the overall cost. Part of the reason oil is so high is because the market is so nervous about a disruption.

    Every time you look at a windmill, if you are so lucky to own some nice coastal real estate with one in sight in the future, please think about the lives saved, think about the money not going to corrupt governments, think about how much you're helping the planet. Maybe then you will protest to HAVE them in your sight, instead of not. They are beautiful.

  • Re:Ocean view (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @05:43PM (#23924977)

    Why would I want to ask Ted Kennedy about anything? I live in california, I'm not a democrat, so what exactly is your point and how is this a reply to anything I said?

      I didn't say every nuclear plant is going to melt down either, not even close, but you're obviously responding from your own biases and not to what I said. My point was clear, to anyone who is capable of analyzing what I said, that I much prefer any eyesore aspect of windmills over the *POTENTIAL* for a meltdown form a nuclear plant. Maybe you're one of those True Believers(TM) in nuclear power who think that any plant we build today will magically be meltdown proof, but I prefer realism over delusions, so I can't share that view.

  • Corrosion? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by fragMasterFlash ( 989911 ) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @06:38PM (#23925683)

    Can anyone enlighten me as to how offshore platforms such as in TFA will be able to withstand such a corrosive environment while remaining cost effective?

  • by mapsjanhere ( 1130359 ) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @06:57PM (#23925885)
    Well, try being from Albuquerque, New Mexico.
    About one in ten US companies tries to connect you to their international shipping department when you call in an order...
  • by Vellmont ( 569020 ) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @10:39PM (#23928127) Homepage


    that's close to what my electric bill is now

    Why does everyone seem to think I was saying this would be the electric costs/month?

    This isn't the cost to produce electricity, nor the cost it will sell at. It's JUST the cost to produce the plant divided over 25 years. Maintenance, transmission, and any overhead aren't included.

    The cost of the actual electricity is a totally different number. The point here is that the construction costs alone are VERY high.

  • Indeed! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Fantastic Lad ( 198284 ) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @10:39PM (#23928133)

    Hear hear!

    I've often wondered what the objection is as well. --Having seen acres of white windmills, I can honestly say I was filled with pride at the sight. They were actually quite beautiful from an aesthetic standpoint. Without making any judgments about other forms of power generation, compare the simple aesthetics of wind power to the gray cooling towers associated with nuclear power, or the toxic smokestacks from coal burning plants.

    I think the complaints are almost more grudging responses to the implication that we have been in some ways irresponsible and dirty as a culture with respect to our approach to power generation. Because people don't like to feel guilty, they choose instead to sneer at and complain about alternative solutions. --Or perhaps they are squeamish about things they register as being, "Touchey-Feeley", (like a grade school kid being afraid of cooties. "Caring about the environment is GAAAAAY! EEEWWW!"), and so they react in the same way.

    Don't laugh. I know far too many grown men who are emotionally still stuck in Jr. High. While this kind of behavior is more prevalent among geeks than the gen pop, there appears to be a counter-balance in effect; that is, some of the most enlightened people I've ever met are also geeks, and their enlightenment derives exactly through geekdom. Geeks are extremists.


    -FL

  • by RealGrouchy ( 943109 ) on Tuesday June 24, 2008 @11:45PM (#23928775)

    Really? What about the damage done by increased congestion and sprawl?

    Plus, if someone gets a $1000 rebate for buying a Prius, which has about 1/3 less fuel consumption than a regular car, then why don't people get a $3000 rebate for buying a bicycle, which has about 3/3 less fuel consumption than a regular car?

    And what happens to their old car? Before we had the person's old car on the roads, now we have the person's old car (now being driven by somebody else) AND a Prius. If they didn't have a car previously, then we're still adding a Prius' fuel consumption and emissions to the equation. And it would take tremendous amounts of energy to scrap all (most) old cars and replace them with new, incrementally-more-efficient hybrid vehicles in one fell swoop.

    We cannot continue to expand our energy consumption and think that more technology and more advanced technology will solve all our problems.

    - RG>

"Life begins when you can spend your spare time programming instead of watching television." -- Cal Keegan

Working...