US To Fire Up Big Offshore Wind Energy Projects 223
coondoggie writes "The US government today took a bold step toward perhaps finally getting some offshore wind energy development going with $50 million in investment money and the promise of renewed effort to develop the energy source. The plan focuses on overcoming three key challenges (PDF) that have made offshore wind energy practically non-existent in the US: the relatively high cost of offshore wind energy; technical challenges surrounding installation, operations, and grid interconnection; and the lack of site data and experience with project permitting processes."
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
In a few short years (if not already) there won't be enough petroleum to go around regardless of how much drilling (off shore or onshore) you want to do. It's time to be preparing for that day.
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
(looks both ways, feeds troll)
Screw drilling. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but big oil is not so concerned about proceedure as they are about profit, which is exactly why Shell had deep water horizon explode like that. Moreover, it was not a singular incident. The federal investigation found systemic wrongdoing [independent.co.uk] in many offshore drilling projects.
What I want to see, is land-based wind generation in areas suited to it. My home state could power at least 3 others if this were to come to fruition.
It is absolutely disgusting that people can build a new skyscraper in New York without any 'Environmental impact studies" on migratory birds, but somehow it becomes so very relevent as soon as we are talking about non-poluting power generation structures.
Massachusetts? (Score:4, Insightful)
Since Ted Kennedy is gone, may they'll put it up there.
Most folks don't want an energy source nearby (Score:4, Insightful)
They flip out when someone says, "Hey, let's just build a little Hiroshima or Nagasaki right across from your backyard!"
The Kennedy Clan gets their drawer in an uproar, when anyone suggests that they build windmills anywhere near their property on Cape Cpd.
So, sadly, switching to alternative energy sources is not a technological problem, but a political one.
Re:Remember Carter? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Original headline 'Us Tries To Fire Up.. (Score:5, Insightful)
But it seems both the summary and TFA overlooked the FOURTH big Key Challenge to getting off shore wind projects started, namely Ted Kennedy, (rip).
A steadfast opponent of anything in his back yard, he pretty well held the entire off shore industry in check for 30 years.
Missed the BIGGEST Challenge (Score:3, Insightful)
The article claims 3 challenges. I claim the article is worthless without addressing the 4th!
the relatively high cost of offshore wind energy; technical challenges surrounding installation, operations, and grid interconnection; and the lack of site data and experience with project permitting processes."
They missed NIMBYism!!! Amateurs.
UNLESS, they included it in "...project permitting processes."
Maybe now that the Kennedy's have more or less completely kicked off at this point, Obama can finally tap the North Eastern ocean?
Re:Massachusetts? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Missed the BIGGEST Challenge (Score:5, Insightful)
some comparisons between wind and nuclear (Score:4, Insightful)
Nuclear occupies the mining space as well as the reactor space in land so they are probably about even there.
The technology employed in a Nuclear reactor will be almost a decade out of date on day one of production presuming the very latest technology was implemented in the design. With a wind farm new technology can be implemented as old wind generators come off-line. This means the gap between technology updates for wind power are available much closer in time when compared to production, this means the rate of technology development in wind power is faster than nuclear.
Wind power has a much lower energy cost to tear down because it can be demolished like a normal building, Nuclear power plant have very special and costly concerns when you have to tear them down and time will eventually take its toll on the reactor building.
Before some one talks about "Only Nuclear can do base load", base load is a function of the entire grid not any one energy source.
American are extremely blessed with wind power and indeed other sources. The potential exists to solve most, if not all of America's energy requirements. Every technology professional stands to benefit from the flow on effects of all alternate energy solution AND still use nuclear as a longer term solution as the technology is developed in that area. It's difficult to believe that there is only enough imagination for a Nuclear solution when, clearly, Solar and wind are very appealing technologically.
Re:Remember Carter? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wind is less than 1% as efficient as coal.
How can you define efficiency for both wind and coal? Typically the efficiency of a coal power plant is measured as the amount of recovered energy over the amount of released energy (from combustion). How do you define what energy is available for wind power?
Even more importantly, we don't much care how much power is harvested from the wind; what we care about is total output over installation costs, or over maintenance costs. While the wind may not, strictly speaking, be an unlimited resource, it can be easily externalized by wind companies, without too many complaints from neighbors who don't have the breezes they used to.
Re:Remember Carter? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is private profit more important than clean air and energy security? Switching to another fossil fuel is just bailing out the Titanic, you're still going down sooner or later.