Government Approves First US Offshore Wind Farm 432
RobotRunAmok writes "In a groundbreaking decision that some say will usher in a new era of clean energy, US Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said today he was approving the nation's first offshore wind farm, the controversial Cape Wind project off of Cape Cod. The project has undergone years of environmental review and political maneuvering, including opposition from the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, whose home overlooks Nantucket Sound, and from Wampanoag Indian tribes who complained that the 130 turbines, which would stand more than 400 feet above the ocean surface, would disturb spiritual sun greetings and possibly ancestral artifacts and burial grounds on the seabed. But George Bachrach, president of the Environmental League of Massachusetts, hailed the decision, saying it was 'a critical step toward ending our reliance on foreign oil and achieving energy independence.'"
Flashback! (Score:2, Informative)
'a critical step toward ending our reliance on foreign oil and achieving energy independence.'" I thought that was why the Department of Energy was created.
Re:They only valid complaint about this wind farm (Score:4, Informative)
If Christians had said that it messed up sunrise services for Easter would you have been respecting their position too?
Mass transit authorities put trains under cemeteries all the time, why should these guys be any different?
Oh and they have really good leadership too
http://boston.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel09/campaignviolations021109.htm [fbi.gov]
"In February 2009 Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe chairman Glenn A. Marshall pleaded guilty to federal charges of violations of campaign finance law, tax fraud, wire fraud, and Social Security fraud – all in connection with the effort to secure federal recognition for the tribe."
Re:that's great but... (Score:2, Informative)
That argument does not hold. Every power plant has downtimes for scheduled maintainance or because of accidents. You need backup power plants anyway for that. The fact that the downtimes happen more often for wind power than for nuclear power does not make it a lot more expensive or complicated to provide the backup power.
For some of these scenarious (emergency shutdown of a power plant) you need special power plants (gas turbines usually) that can quickly produce additional power. Both coal and nuclear are completely unsuited to fulfil that task.
As far as the environment is concerned it does not really matter what type of plant you use for backup power as they run a relatively small portion of time.
The vast majory of energy can be produce by a mix of unreliable sources without brownouts as long as the resulting variance the you get after mixing can be covered by some quickly reacting reliable source with relatively low capacity.
nuclear waste not that much (Score:5, Informative)
Nuclear Waste: Amounts and On-Site Storage [nei.org]
"Over the past four decades, the entire industry has produced about 62,500 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. If used fuel assemblies were stacked end-to-end and side-by-side, this would cover a football field about seven yards deep. "
Re:that's great but... (Score:4, Informative)
A study showed that in the Netherlands, one third of the electricity [olino.org] could be reliably generated from wind. There is a link to the Ph.D. thesis at the bottom of the article.
The Netherlands has a long coast line, which makes it a very good location for wind energy. I don't know if the US has enough good locations to place wind farms to produce one third of electricity, but if it does not, then the problem with fluctuations in how much power is supplied to the grid will only be easier to manage.
In other words, you indeed cannot get 100% of your electricity from wind, but this is no reason not to build lots of wind farms today since you're nowhere near the limit yet.
MIT has something to say (Score:3, Informative)
Pardon the bad source, but I don't have time to really look into it.
Re:Good move... (Score:1, Informative)
but these things are going to require maintenance and they aren't going to shut them down for simple maintenance..
I live near a wind farm (northwest Indiana) and they do stop the blades when performing maintenance. When you have hundreds of the things it's not going kill your output to stop one for a few hours to keep from killing someone.
Re:that's great but... (Score:2, Informative)
Did you even bother to read my post?
Anything that can cover the emergency shutdown of a nuclear power plant (e.g. provide a Gigawatt electrical power within minutes without advance notice) can cope with the variations in wind power output.
These solutions exist and are part of the grid. It does not really matter how often you have to turn them on once you built them.
A few years ago the summer in europe was so hot, that they almost had to shut down all nuclear power plants along the river rhine at once because there wasn't enough water for cooling. Again: Situations like these are less frequent with nuclear or coal compared to wind, but that does not make it any easier to provide technology to deal with them.
It's just the same as with UPS for servers: Mine has not been needed since I purchased it. In a devlopment country I might have need for it once a week. Still the one I installed in my home is not less expensive or simpler.
Re:About damn time. (Score:5, Informative)
And when the wind stops, make sure you have candles handy...
This may just be a wry comment, and not an attempt at serious criticism, but this point is often brought up to criticize both solar and wind power. And certainly it sounds like a serious problem since, after all, existing power systems are on-line all the time, and having a major aspect of the power system dependent on something as fickle as weather introduces serious unresolved problems into power grid management.
Doesn't it??
No, it doesn't.
The reality is that even "base load" (constant output) plants get shut down for extended periods for maintenance of various kinds, not infrequently unpredictably due to equipment problems. And, due to large fluctuations in power demand across the daily cycle (which can be unpredictable due to weather) there must be special expensive peaking power plants anyway.
It turns out that managing a diverse national power grid has a substantial component of solar and wind power is exactly like managing one that doesn't. A lot of solar and wind power necessarily means many plants spread over a vast geographical area, and while the wind may die (or the sky may cloud over) down in one place, it will be blowing hard (or shining brightly) in others. The power fluctuations are no worse than fluctuation in demand, and both are addressed in the same way - by having peaking capacity in with costly peaking plants, or some energy storage method, and by having redundancy in base load plant capacity.
Re:Yea! (Score:4, Informative)
> For those of us who are not intimate with American politics -- why is this moderated insightful, flamebait and troll?
Because Senator Edward M. "Swim Bitch!" Kennedy is a very polarizing figure. To people like me he represents everything wrong with Progressivism and the Democrat Party. A repulsive scion of a gangster family who made a career out of demagoguery and debauchery. To them he was sort of a god, the Liberal Lion of the Senate and the last fading glory of Camelot.
But everyone agrees with this much: he was he was a very powerful politician with essentially a lifetime appointment to the Senate who single handedly stopped the Cape Cod wind project cold in its tracks while he lived.
I'm not very green but I certainly like the idea of wind energy in places like that where it is both abundant and close enough to population centers to make delivery simple. That couldn't happen because one wicked yet powerful man stood in the way. He is now safely roasting in Hell and now we can tap a practical source of energy. Yea!
Re:Flashback! (Score:4, Informative)
the U.S. Energy Information Administration would disagree with you there. They claim (data from 2008, report released Jan 21st 2010) that 1.1% of the U.S. electrical power is generated from Petroleum products while 3.1% is generated by "Other Renewables" (solar, wind, etc)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/figes1.html [doe.gov]
Re:that's great but... (Score:3, Informative)
Or maybe we could put it back where it came from in the first place. Surely now that it has expended enough energy to generate all kinds of electricity, it must be less dangerous now that it was before?
Re:Yea! (Score:2, Informative)
a correction:
Ted Kennedy was a polarizing figure, a social parasite noted for continual drunkeness on the Senate floor, and his extreme leftist tendencies, called the Lion of the Senate, famous for having driven off a bridge leaving the passenger to die, in shallow water, in the back of the car, while he swam ashore and then got a good nights sleep, and spent the early part of the next day with his buddies and denying knowledge of the incident until confronted (killing the female passenger),
Fixed that for ya
Re:that's great but... (Score:3, Informative)
Did you even bother to read my post?
Anything that can cover the emergency shutdown of a nuclear power plant (e.g. provide a Gigawatt electrical power within minutes without advance notice) can cope with the variations in wind power output.
These solutions exist and are part of the grid. It does not really matter how often you have to turn them on once you built them.
A few years ago the summer in europe was so hot, that they almost had to shut down all nuclear power plants along the river rhine at once because there wasn't enough water for cooling. Again: Situations like these are less frequent with nuclear or coal compared to wind, but that does not make it any easier to provide technology to deal with them.
It's just the same as with UPS for servers: Mine has not been needed since I purchased it. In a devlopment country I might have need for it once a week. Still the one I installed in my home is not less expensive or simpler.
Right you are! And I might add that existing power grids already have to handle large short term power supply-demand mismatches due to the unpredictable nature of the... wait for it ... WEATHER! Sulimma cites hot weather shutting down nukes in Europe, but very commonly everywhere hot or cold weather (over huge areas) cause huge power demand fluctuations. That this occurs on the demand side rather than the supply side makes not a whot of difference in managing it.
Managing a nation power grid with lots of wind and solar power is exactly like managing one without it.
Re:About damn time. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Flashback! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:About damn time. (Score:3, Informative)
Despite this insurance being covered, it has been Wall Street that has been wary of the financial risk of nuclear plants due to massive cost overruns that occurred in nuclear plant construction in the 1970s along with demand for electricity that did not grow as projected by the utilities.
Re:About damn time. (Score:1, Informative)
You ought to take your own advice, Bryansix. A little "research" would have informed you that no insurance company has ever written a policy on a nuclear plant. They are considered uninsurable by their very nature. Insurance companies view the risk as just too great.
The only way they have been built is because governments write special laws absolving the owners of liability, which is what happened in France, and Europe and wherever nuclear plants exist in the US.
In France, the law is called "The Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy". Here in the US, the law is called "The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act". The UK has "The Nuclear Installations Act".
Now that you mention it, I would like to see a nuclear power plant in your backyard, too.
Again, I'm not saying nuclear plants are dangerous. I would like to see them built. But at the moment, the "free market" in the form of insurance companies, don't seem to think they are safe enough.
Re:Good move... (Score:4, Informative)
there is zero chance you'll be able to come up with a convincing case for one oil rig being less dangerous to workers than any practical size of wind farm
The grandparent post is definitely talking out his ass, but it's an interesting question, so I ran the numbers myself.
No question more people die mining coal than running wind power, but since coal is a much bigger industry, I think the fairest comparison is number of accidental deaths per unit electricity produced.
US coal mine deaths, 2005-2009: 30/year
http://www.msha.gov/stats/charts/coal2009yearend.asp [msha.gov]
US coal energy produced, 2008: 22.4 quads (or exajoules)
Heat -> Electricity efficiency factor: 30%
https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/energy/energy.html [llnl.gov]
US energy from coal: 6.7 exajoules/year
Worldwide wind power deaths, 2000-2006: At least 15, avg 2.7/year
http://www.windaction.org/documents/1318 [windaction.org]
Worldwide wind power installed capacity, avg 2001-2006: 40,000 MW
http://www.wwindea.org/home/index.php [wwindea.org]
Average capacity factor for wind plants: 25%
Estimated world wind energy output, 2001-2006 avg: 0.32 exajoules/year
Bottom line:
US Coal mining deaths per exajoule electricity produced: 4.5
World wind power deaths per exajoule electricity produced: at least 8.4
Surprised? I sure was! I expect the wind power number to drop dramatically as the industry develops, of course.
Re:Flashback! (Score:2, Informative)
The Lumbee Indians lived in this area long ago. The woods close to the shores have lots of old burial mounds and artifacts. Progress Energy has no problem timbering the land, bulldozing the mounds, then selling the land for development. Progress Energy (or any capitalist venture) is much more concerned with the money the white man will pay for waterfront homes than any type of Indian history.
The underwater Indian burial sites were nothing more than a smoke screen used by the affluent white folks living on the waterfront. The "Indian card" is only played when it helps to preserve the white man's way of life...
And knowing what posts are coming next: Yes, Craig T Nelson and JoBeth Williams used to live here in the 80's until a tree attacked their house and their daughter walked into the light.... "They're here"
Re:nuclear waste not that much (Score:3, Informative)
Part of what causes coastal wind is the temperature gradient between land and sea - the farther out you go, the weaker this effect will be. I'm not sure how much weaker, but it is something to consider.
Re:that's great but... (Score:3, Informative)
The exciting thing is that with breeder technology, the world could run off existing nuclear waste for the next 500 years without opening a single new uranium mine. With breeder technology, even the background uranium and thorium in GRANITE becomes energetically and eventually economically viable (when thinking about uranium supplies in a million years or so).
As Finrod claims: [blogspot.com]
Re:About damn time. (Score:5, Informative)
your a fucking retard, i this is the 3rd hit on google.
Re:Good move... (Score:4, Informative)
I used world wind power and energy stats rather than US-only to avoid problems with small-number statistics.
But this is a fair comparison: for the years in question, *all* fatal wind turbine accidents were in Western countries with workplace safety laws at least as strong as U.S. laws. The majority were in the U.S., Germany, and England, with a few in Denmark, New Zealand, etc.
Comparing world turbine deaths to world coal deaths would *not* be fair, because up till very recently, turbine work was only done in developed countries. I picked these data specifically to *avoid* the bias you describe.
Re:Wind + Solar = Easier peak power demand (Score:3, Informative)
So, when are the peak energy demands for the USA? In the middle of the day, and In the summer. Hmm, when are the peak production times for Wind and Solar (its the same!).
This is not true. Wind farms in Tehachapi, CA are most active during the morning and evening hours due to sudden pressure changes in the desert as a result of heating and cooling. Pressures equalize by the middle of the day and the middle of the night, precisely during peak power (needed heating or cooling). Granted, that's only one location, but it's a big one. Solar, on the other hand, is more or less most active during peak power.
Re:Good move... (Score:1, Informative)
This is far from valid comparison as the deaths in the data ( for the years you outline) include a suicide, driver distraction from looking at turbines, a crane operators death on the way to the site because the road collapsed, a traffic death that involved a truck delivering a turbine, a parachutist who went 4k off coarse hit the blades .... The only way this could be even close to valid is to find all of the auxiliary deaths marginally related to coal power, truck accidents, parachutist landing in power lines where the power was created by coal, equipment in transport ....
Re:Flashback! (Score:4, Informative)
Vertical axis turbines (which is what I think you're describing) aren't as efficient as horizontal axis turbines where every part of the blade on every part of the cycle experiences maximum lift from the wind.
The massive horizontal axis turbines that have a single support column with a rounded top instead of a scaffolding (like the Altamont Pass turbines, which encouraged raptors to nest on them causing much of the problem) are more than good enough with regard to bird strikes